Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 21 Feb 2001 to 22 Feb 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 36 messages totalling 2239 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. habitat selection (3)
2. Botanical Term
3. gw: Fingerprints of melting ice caps point directly to global climate
change and se
4. All specialized insect predators not suitable for biological control
5. Field Guide (2)
6. ECOLOG-L: Clarity of scientific terminology (Re: Habitat (2)
7. Botanical term
8. semantics shemantics
9. Graduate Research Assistantship in Aquatic Ecology
10. The role of science in restoring California's water resources
11. EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites
12. Science Spending to be Slashed in first Bush Budget (3)
13. Humpty Dumpty - Why Preservation versus Restoration? (2)
14. EU forestry companies
15. Habitats, species, and such
16. Global appetite for farmed fish devouring world's wild fish supplies
17. graduate student and post-doc positions at Michigan Tech
18. National Park Service web site for research and collecting permits
19. LA Times Request: Input on Environment & Cinema
20. Thanks...
21. field guide
22. Post Doctoral Fellow Position
23. scented foliage adaptation?
24. Geology list server?
25. scented foliage adaptation - can of worms (2)
26. Habitat selection/preference
27. habitat selection--more terms for?
28. plant ecology job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:06:34 -0600
From: "Brett C. Woods" <bcwoods@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: habitat selection
I personally like the following definition:
"selection is the process in which an animal chooses a resource, and
preference is the likelihood that a resource will be selected if offered
on an equal basis with others (Johnson 1980)."
This quote is taken from "Resource selection by animals: Statistical
design and analysis for field studies". In my opinion, an excellent book
on the subject.
This quote is based on a paper by Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of
usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference.
Ecology 61:65-71.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Beth Michaels wrote:
> Greetings list folk.
>
> I too find this discussion confusing. In my admitted
> naivete, I take "prefer" to mean "choose an ideal ___
> from an infinite array of options", and "select" to
> mean "choose one______ from a limited array of
> possibly less desirable options." Will anyone be so
> kind as to enlighten me?
> Beth
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:31:40 -0500
From: Thom Cate <tcate@ZOO.UVM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botanical Term
Howard S Neufeld wrote:
> What should we call the runners? Normally, runners refer to aboveg
ound
> connections. Thanks for your help.
The word is "rhizome"--an underground runner. Note that "runner" is a
colloquialism; the proper term for aboveground horizontal connections
between nodes is a "stolon."
Cheers,
TC
--
_______________________________________________________________________
|
Thom Cate | ÎBiology is the study of plants and
Graduate Research Fellow | their parasites¼
Proctor Maple Research Center | --unknown
|
University of Vermont | Î...that goat doesn t love YOU!¼
120-B Marsh Life Science | --Weird Al Yankovic
Burlington, VT 05405 |
| ÎFencers only recognise fencers,
| potential fencers and hopeless
| individuals.¼
| - Aldo Nadi
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:20:15 -0500
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: gw: Fingerprints of melting ice caps point directly to global clim
te
change and se
"Fingerprints" of melting ice caps point directly to global climate
change and sea level rise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The figure is a computer simulation of what happens to sea levels in the
event of ice sheet melts near the Northern or Southern poles. The blue
colors show a drop in sea level while the red and orange colors show a
rise.
The top image shows the impact on sea level when polar ice sheets in the
Antarctic are melted. As can be seen, the blue color indicates a
decrease in sea level near the Antarctic while it also shows a
corresponding rise in sea level in the Northern Hemisphere.
The middle image shows the effect on sea level when the polar ice sheets
of Greenland are melted. As can be seen, the sea level decreases around
Greenland but rises in the Southern Hemisphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Credit images to Jerry Mitrovica of the University of Toronto. Cutline
to go with graphic:
Full size image available through contact
Global climate change is having a direct impact on the Earth's sea level
and a group of scientists led by two University of Toronto geophysicists
is providing the sea level "fingerprints" of polar ice sheet melting to
prove it.
Rates of sea level change over the last century vary widely from one
geographic location to another even after these rates have been
corrected for known effects. The question has always been, why? What is
causing these significant variations? Jerry Mitrovica, University of
Toronto geophysics professor, is lead author of a paper to appear in the
Feb. 22 issue of Nature that claims to have discovered the answer. And
it is an answer that has an important impact on the debate over global
climate change.
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/uot-fom022001.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:24 -0500
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: All specialized insect predators not suitable for biological contro
21 FEBRUARY 2001 AT 14:00 ET US
Contact: A'ndrea Elyse Messer
aem1@psu.edu
814-865-9481
Penn State
All specialized insect predators not suitable for biological control
University Park, PA -- An enemy is an enemy is an enemy, but some
natural enemies are better than others at controlling prey populations
and some enemies are ineffective, even though they are specialized,
according to a Penn State entomologist.
"Indian meal moths are a serious stored-food pest, and pathogens such as
the virus Plodia interpunetella granulovirus and parasitoids, such as
the wasp Venturia canescans, are prime candidates for its biological
control," says Dr. Ottar N. Bjornstad, assistant professor of entomology
and biology. "However, while they are both specialist enemies, the
parasitoid wasp serves to depress host densities greatly, but the virus
is completely ineffective."
Bjornstad, working with Steven M. Sait, David J. Thompson, and Michael
Begon, University of Liverpool and, Nils Chr. Stenseth, University of
Oslo, studied populations of Indian meal moths, alone and infected by
both the virus and the wasp over a two-year period.
Reporting in the Feb. 22 issue of the journal Nature, the researchers
note that the difference in biological control can be attributed to the
strength of coupling between the meal moth host and the parasitoid.
"Theory predicts that strong coupling between a prey and a specialist
predator/parasite should lead to an increase in the dimensionality of
the prey's dynamics, but weak coupling should not," says Bjornstad.
"When coupled host-enemy dynamics occurs, the abundance of the host
species, is affected by the abundance of the enemy which, in turn, feeds
back on the abundance of the host. This is the mechanism responsible for
the successful control of the moth by the wasp."
The researchers studied three groups of insects. The control group of
uninfected Indian meal moths, a group infected by the virus and a group
infected by the predator wasp. The life cycles and infectious mechanisms
of the parasitoids play an important role in the success of the
parasitoids in controlling the meal moth population. The virus infects
the moth larvae either when they eat infected food or the carcasses of
infected moth larvae. However, resistance to disease increases with age
so that the older larvae are immune to the virus.
Also, viral infection while sometimes fatal can be sublethal allowing
infected individuals to reach the reproductive stage. In the wasp/meal
moth system, the researchers found that the number of adult wasps
emerging depended on the numbers of susceptible larvae and the number of
adult wasps that were present three weeks before when the eggs were
laid. The system was strongly coupled with a lag of three weeks.
For the meal moth/virus system, the number of infected larvae was also
dependent on the number of infected and susceptible larvae present three
weeks before, but the number of adult hosts did not decrease with the
abundance of previously infected meal moth larvae. The meal moth/virus
system is not fully coupled. Increased meal moth abundance does lead to
increased virus infection, but this increase does not negatively impact
the host population.
"The lack of host-virus coupling is surprising since the virus is a
highly specialized enemy that induces significant mortality in the early
larval instars of the host," says Bjornstad. The researchers suggest
that the explanation for this lack of coupling lies in the strong
competition between large larvae. While the wasps attack older larvae,
the virus infects younger larvae and the virus-induced mortality is
partially compensated for by meal moths that survive to adulthood. While
the virus does affect the meal moth, it does not form a strong enemy
host coupling. "We found that the specialist enemies can, as theory
predicts, increase the dimension of host dynamics through complete
coupling, but also that the increase in dimensional complexity can be
counterbalanced if coupling is weak," says Bjornstad. "In theory, there
is a direct connection in ecological systems between the number of
identifiable interacting groups and what is referred to as the
dimensions of the dynamics. We are now able to calculate this quantity
from time series data. To our surprise, we found that in natural
systems, there may be such a connection, but it is not inevitable."
The researchers believe that this might explain why certain keystone
species embedded in rich ecological communities apparently exhibit low
numbers of interactions with other species. "This research may
potentially illuminate the enigmatic nature of biological control," says
Bjornstad. It may also help determine which specialized enemy species
can serve as efficient biological controls and which, while specialized
enemies, will not control populations."
###
EDITORS: Dr. Bjornstad is at 814-863-2983 or by e-mail at onb1@psu.edu
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/psu-adi022001.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:22:02 -0800
From: Darren Loomis <dloomis@CNU.EDU>
Subject: Field Guide
I intend to travel to eastern Siberia this summer in the region of the
city of Magadan. I am looking for a field guide to the flora of the
region. My preference is for a floristic key written in english. At
the least a picture guide (wildflower guide) in Russian with color
pictures. Does anyone have a recommendation.
Darren Loomis
Christopher Newport University
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:48:36 +0200
From: Yaron Ziv <yziv@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL>
Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L: Clarity of scientific terminology (Re: Habitat
selection, schmelection)
First, I think that the changed subject name: "Habitat selection,
schmelection" is impolite (some might even say rude) in a way that makes me
feel quite uncomfortable.
Second, I think that, at least for a certain group of people who work on
these issues on a daily basis, the difference between habitat selection and
habitat preference is very clear. Furthermore, the distinction relies on
solid population-dynamics based body of theory. Since we will never be
able to get all the information (definitely not the heavy stuff) from
listserv discussion (which has its great contribution for other things), I
recommend those who are interested in getting into the details to go
through the relevant literature. In a previous message, I have enclosed a
list of publications. I think that reading just the following papers will
give a good picture on this school:
Fretwell, S. D. and H. L. J. Lucas (1969). "On territorial behavior and
other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds." Acta
Biotheoretica 19: 16-36.
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1991). "Habitat selection and population interactions:
the search for mechanism." American Naturalist 137: S5-S28.
Rosenzweig, M. L. and Z. Abramsky (1997). "Two gerbils of the Negev: a
long-term investigation of optimal habitat selection and its consequences."
Evolutionary Ecology 11: 733-756.
All the best,
-- Yaron Ziv
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:23:51 -0500
From: Allison Schwarz <aschwarz@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Botanical term
Howard,
In my experience, the term rhizome refers to a horizontal underground stem
(and stolon or runner refers to a stem that grows along the surface of the
ground).
I'm in interested in learning more about your research on Galax urceolata
-- as you may know, the USFS, NPS, and NCDA are actively tagging Galax in
restricted areas of the Nantahala NF and along the Blue Ridge Parkway to
deter poaching.
Allison Schwarz
Botanist
Nantahala National Forest
aschwarz@fs.fed.us
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Howard S Neufeld wrote:
> Dear All,
> We are working with an evergreen, understory herb called Galax urce
lata
> (formerly G. aphylla). It is clonal. Each plant is composed of severa
> leaves attached to a short underground rhizome. Ramets are connected b
> long underground runners that grow out of the rhizome.
>
> What should we call the runners? Normally, runners refer to aboveg
ound
> connections. Thanks for your help.
>
> Howie Neufeld
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Howard S. Neufeld, Professor
> 572 Rivers St.
> P.O. Box 32027
> Dept. of Biology
> Appalachian State University
> Boone, NC 28608-2027
> ------------------------------------------
> Tel. 828-262-2683
> FAX 828-262-2127
> ------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:08:01 -0800
From: Timothy Brook Smith <timsmith@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: semantics shemantics
> First, I hope that this "thread" will continue until the questions
> submitted are clearly resolved and our (or at least my) ignorance is
> clearly delineated. It seems to me that this "thread" is a highly
> important one, and that to abandon it unresolved and undelineated woul
be,
> shall we say, "un-courageous?
It seems to me far too ambitious an undertaking to delineate even one human
s
ignorance.
It also seems a fairly conventional thing to say "select a habitat" or "sel
ct
a diet item" and a cursory tour through a half dozen texts on my desk seems
to
confirm that. However, I too am all for the integration of ecology and
evolutionary theory. I can see how the word "choice" may be preferable to
"selection" to avoid confusion from that perspective. We should remember,
however, that both the Women's Reproductive Rights movement, and some
educational policy wonks have also laid claim to the word "choice", so agai
,
you will still have to fall back upon the vagaries of context if you encoun
er
this word.
To avoid future problems in this regard, I propose use of the word "Glafloi
el
hecking" to denote the use of a sub-optimal diet item or habitat. ;)
If there are issues remaining here other than semantics, I believe a list
member from Isreal provided an excellent bibliography covering some of
foundational literature regarding these issues. If you have deleted that, m
st
behavioral ecology texts will have some discussions of "ideal free
distribution" and "despotic distribution" and the rest.
Best of luck,
Tim
It seems to me that
> "selection" is a genetic/evolution term, quite valid, useful, and high
y
> relevant to this discussion in this context. I suppose it's ok for bo
h
> terms to be used and distinguished by context, but where confusion can
> occur, clarity would appear to be better option.
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:53:30 -0800
From: Timothy Brook Smith <timsmith@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: habitat selection
Hi Beth.
Yes, this thread has spiraled off in some confusing directions. I am probab
y
somewhat responsible for starting this, so I will try my best to end it here
The original comment about "selection" vs "preference" was directed toward a
grad student with some statistical questions. He mentioned in passing that
is
field sampling was intended to measure stonefly "preferences" for certain
habitats. He was probably already aware of this, but I had to open my big m
uth
and remind him that because of interactions between organisms in the habitat
some of the stoneflies may not be utilizing a "preferred" habitat (your
definition for that word is perfectly suitable for what is intended here).
Instead, what he was probably measuring was "selection" (or "choice") of
habitats from the range of available options.
I gave the example of crayfish. Orconectes immunis use rocky cobble substra
es
if given the choice to do so. However, stronger, dominant crayfish species
displace O. immunis from cobble, so O. immunis is instead often found in
soft-bottomed areas of streams and lakes. The preferred habitat is cobble,
their selected habitat is silt. The habitats chosen (or "selected") by O.
immunis depend on what other species are around...this type of interaction h
s
been shown for other taxa as well...perhaps even stonefiles, I don't know.
he
bottom line is if you care about where organisms are found and why they are
found there, (as many ecologists are) you should be aware of this (fairly
mundane) distinction.
The ensuing discussion has included a detailed description of the literature
in
this area, objections over the semantics of "selection", some gratuitous dig
at
the grad. student's question, and a suggestion that we are hopeless fools if
we
think we will ever know enough about behavior or anything else in communitie
to
ever do anything of value in them.
..isn't this horse dead yet?
Best of luck,
Tim
> Greetings list folk.
>
> I too find this discussion confusing. In my admitted
> naivete, I take "prefer" to mean "choose an ideal ___
> from an infinite array of options", and "select" to
> mean "choose one______ from a limited array of
> possibly less desirable options." Will anyone be so
> kind as to enlighten me?
> Beth
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:51:10 -0600
From: Caryn Vaughn <cvaughn@OU.EDU>
Subject: Graduate Research Assistantship in Aquatic Ecology
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_CmHBRD9lnfrBKXpsyAOBwg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Graduate Research Assistantship
Aquatic invertebrates; University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Funding is available for a graduate research assistantship to
work on an intensive aquatic invertebrate survey of 50 springs
throughout Oklahoma. I am seeking an enthusiastic field-
oriented MS or PhD student with field experience and
identification skills (or an interest in learning these skills).
Extensive travel is required.
The goals of the project are to compare current spring
communities with communities occurring in the same springs 20
years ago; and to associate changes in the communities with
concurrent changes in water flow in the springs. Hence the
project has taxonomic, distributional, and conservation aspects.
Oklahoma is a geographically diverse state, and spring sites
range from the mesa region in the Oklahoma panhandle to the
coastal plain region of SE Oklahoma. The project is funded by
the Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute and USGS.
Interested students apply to the graduate program in the
Zoology Department at OU. The Zoology Department has a
large aquatic research group, with faculty interests ranging from
conservation biology to molecular ecology. The student will
work primarily at the nearby Oklahoma Biological Survey. The
assistantship can begin as early as June 2001.
For further information, please contact Dr. Elizabeth Bergey,
Oklahoma Biological Survey, 111 E. Chesapeake Street,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019;
lbergey@ou.edu; (405)325-7071, and visit the web pages of
the Department of Zoology (http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/)
and the Oklahoma Biological Survey
(http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/).
--Boundary_(ID_CmHBRD9lnfrBKXpsyAOBwg)
Content-type: text/x-vcard; name=cvaughn.vcf; charset=us-ascii
Content-description: Card for Caryn Vaughn
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=cvaughn.vcf
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
begin:vcard
n:Vaughn;Caryn C.
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Oklahoma Biological Survey
adr:;;111 E. Chesapeake St.;Norman;OK;73109;
version:2.1
email;internet:cvaughn@ou.edu
title:Director & Associate Professor
fn:Caryn C. Vaughn
end:vcard
--Boundary_(ID_CmHBRD9lnfrBKXpsyAOBwg)--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:43:06 -0500
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: The role of science in restoring California's water resources
20 FEBRUARY 2001 AT 11:00 ET US
Contact: Mark Shwartz
mshwartz@stanford.edu
650-723-9296
Comment: David L. Freyberg, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering
freyberg@cive.stanford.edu
650-723-3234
Stanford University
The role of science in restoring California's water resources
Few issues in California are as contentious as water
That`s particularly true in Northern California, where snowmelt from the
Sierra Nevada mountains is siphoned off to meet drinking and irrigation
needs for the rest of the state.
But as California`s population continues to grow, so does concern over
the future of its liquid assets. Today many residents are calling for a
balanced approach to water management - one that meets the demands of
thirsty farms and cities while protecting Northern California`s fragile
rivers and lakes.
The critical role played by environmental scientists in solving the
state`s complex water issues will be the subject of a symposium at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) in San Francisco on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at 8 a.m. PT.
Hydrologist David L. Freyberg, an associate professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford, is one of a half-dozen experts
from around the state invited to address the three-hour conference.
``The social, political and economic life of California is completely
entwined with its water resources,`` Freyberg says, ``and the next few
years are likely to be particularly interesting.``
Energy crisis
Freyberg points out that water is intimately linked to California`s most
urgent crisis - the shortage of electricity resulting from deregulation
of the state`s utilities. The power crisis, which caused rolling
blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills in January, has been
exacerbated by a lack of rainfall. That`s because most electricity in
the Golden State is produced by hydroelectric dams, and when water
reservoirs are low, electrical production drops.
Fear of additional shortages has led some political leaders to call for
increased hydropower production, but Freyberg cautions that state policy
makers must weigh the environmental impact of all new water projects.
``Understanding the biological effect of releasing dammed water requires
that we understand the intricate food webs that exist downstream,``
Freyberg says.
``I don`t see any new dams being built in California,`` he says, noting
that ``dams are being removed as we speak to restore damaged
ecosystems.``
California Aqueduct
``There`s a lot of water in California,`` observes Freyberg, ``but not
where people live.``
In fact, most Californians reside in the southern part of the state, in
arid desert communities such as Los Angeles, Anaheim and San Diego. And
California`s multibillion-dollar agriculture industry - which produces
45 percent of America`s fruit and vegetables - is concentrated in the
vast Central Valley, where rainfall is scarce during the summer and fall
growing seasons.
Californians tried to correct the north/south water imbalance in the
1960s by constructing a controversial 700-mile artificial river known as
the California Aqueduct - the largest water conveyance project in the
world. This system of concrete canals diverts millions of acre-feet of
water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in the north to
Southern California and the Central Valley.
``When we alter water distribution on that scale,`` says Freyberg, ``it
significantly changes the environment, particularly riparian ecosystems
that are extremely important to wildlife and fisheries.``
Restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a major challenge for
state policymakers, Freyberg notes. The Delta - a huge wetland ecosystem
that drains into San Francisco Bay - provides drinking water to 20
million people, irrigates millions of acres of farmland and serves as a
recreational playground for thousands of boaters and anglers.
Decades ago, the Delta teemed with fish and wildlife, but development,
pollution and aqueduct diversion have taken their toll.
In March 2000, however, California voters approved a $1.97 billion water
quality initiative, which earmarked more than $250 million to improve
management of the Delta. Part of the money will be used to control
flooding and restore wetland habitat.
Freyberg points out that state and federal officials are working with
wildlife and fisheries biologists, hydrologists, soil chemists and other
environmental scientists to determine the best way to revive the fragile
ecosystem. But that`s not always the case.
``Unfortunately, when it comes to California water policy, a lot of
decisions get made that are not based on science,`` Freyberg says. ``So
many constituencies are involved that tradeoffs are inevitable.``
Other speakers at the AAAS symposium will discuss how scientists are
working to resolve the problems of water contamination, sedimentation
and flooding in Silicon Valley, Lake Tahoe and other parts of Northern
California.
###
Editors: Professor David L. Freyberg will participate in the symposium
``The role of science in the water issues of Northern California`` at
the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science on Tuesday, Feb. 20, from 8 to 11 a.m. PT at the Hilton San
Francisco & Towers, 333 O`Farrell St., San Francisco, CA 94102. For more
information, see the AAAS website at http://www.aaas.org/meetings.
Relevant Web URLs:
http://calfed.ca.gov
http://www.cfwc.com/
http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/
By Mark Shwartz
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/su-tro020901.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:57:35 -0500
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sit
s
EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites
May 30 - June 1, 2001, Hilton Old Town
Alexandria, Virginia
Online Registration at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/new/events.htm
Forum Announcement and Call for Papers
For more information: Contact Joan Fisk at 703.603.8791
This forum will facilitate an open exchange of information and viewpoints
concerning cleanup of contaminated sediments. Panelists and participants
will discuss the key science and policy issues for making the most
appropriate site-specific risk management decisions that are consistent with
current federal laws and regulations.
Specifically, the forum will seek to accomplish the following objectives:
provide a forum for all stakeholders to express their opinions on EPA
program policies and guidance that address sediment remediation;
identify the key site information and data that should be collected and
evaluated in order to make informed site-specific cleanup decisions;
identify issues that need to be resolved, additional data that needs to be
gathered and evaluated, and research that needs to be performed; and
share information and lessons learned as a result of managing contaminated
sediment.
Speakers will be drawn from a wide range of constituencies, including
non-governmental organizations, academia, state government, and the federal
government. Panel discussions will promote a useful exchange of ideas and
viewpoints, and poster presentations will present a wide variety of
information on contaminated sediments and sites. Topics will include
community involvement issues and concerns, site characterization, effects on
human health and ecological resources, and remedy effectiveness
Call for Papers
Panelists: Prospective panelists should submit a one page (double-spaced)
abstract on one of the conference topics described above by February 28,
2001. Abstracts must include the author's name, affiliation, address, phone
number, fax number & e-mail address. Please note that panelists must be
willing to actively engage in discussion.
Poster Sessions: Prospective presenters of poster presentations should
submit an abstract not to exceed one double-spaced page by February 28,
2001. Abstracts must include the author's name, affiliation, address, phone
number, fax number & e-mail address.
Submissions may be sent to:
Joan Fisk
5204G
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
or, preferably, e-mailed to:
fisk.joan@epa.gov - in either WordPerfect or Word.
Hotel Information
Note: Please Make Hotel Reservations by Friday April 27, 2001. (The special
workshop rate for guest rooms may not be available after this date.)
Hilton Alexandria Old Town
1767 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Reservations, Call: 703-837-0440
Guest Room Rates are:
$155. per evening Corporate rate
$119. per evening Government rate
plus current prevailing taxes.
To receive the Workshop rate, mention the EPA Sediment Forum when you
register.
Forum Registration Form
Seating is Limited. Please Register Early.
There is no registration fee for this forum.
You may also print out and mail this form to:
New-Bold Enterprises, Inc.
(EPA Forum Registration)
One Central Plaza, Suite 1008
11300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
You may also print out and fax this form to:
FAX: 301-881-8591 attn: L. Zimmerman
Name:
Title:
Name of Organization:
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Country:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail Address:
Affiliation (Select One)
U.S. EPA
Other Federal Agency
State or Local Agency
Academia
Industry
Consulting
Tribe
Other
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:22:50 -0700
From: Brandon Bestelmeyer <bbestelm@NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: habitat selection
Beth,
You hit it on the head (although "prefer" and "select" have also been used
interchangeably). The act of habitat selection by an individual animal can
be based on broad preferences, based on cues such as habitat structure. The
cues may be learned or innate, but they should indicate the potential for
high fitness returns (i.e. high habitat "quality" or "suitability"). But the
realization of this potential is mediated by a multitude of other factors
that vary alot such as the density of conspecifics, competitors, predators,
or mutualists. Sometimes the preferred habitat just isn't located. In birds,
site tenacity (the behavioural tendency to breed where you successfully bred
previously) may compel individuals to use less preferred habitats even when
better ones are available. Thus, sometimes a habitat type that is generally
preferred is not the one selected. This has made determining what exactly
"preferred" habitat is a tricky business.
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Beth Michaels
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 13:46
To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: habitat selection
Greetings list folk.
I too find this discussion confusing. In my admitted
naivete, I take "prefer" to mean "choose an ideal ___
from an infinite array of options", and "select" to
mean "choose one______ from a limited array of
possibly less desirable options." Will anyone be so
kind as to enlighten me?
Beth
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:45:57 -0500
From: Kevin Hutton <khutton@CNIE.ORG>
Subject: Science Spending to be Slashed in first Bush Budget
Science Spending to be Slashed in first Bush Budget
FLAT BUDGET FOR NSF; 22% CUT FOR USGS
Letters needed right away
[ HTML version is at http://www.cnie.org/updates/88.htm ]
President George W. Bush will propose that "funds for the National
Science Foundation rise just 1% in fiscal 2002," when he submits his
initial budget, according to a February 16 report in the Wall Street
Journal http://www.cnie.org/updates/88b.htm . Additionally, the paper
reports that, "the U.S. Geological Survey, which performs water and
biological studies for federal policy makers, is fighting to stave off a
threatened 22% cut from its $885 million appropriation for this fiscal
year."
While budget numbers for other federal science programs have not been
leaked yet, it is expected that the Environmental Protection Agency,
among others, will face cuts.
President Bush will present his budget priorities to a joint session of
Congress on Feburary 27 and on February 28, release a "blueprint"
document laying out his budgetary themes and proposed spending levels
for federal agencies and departments. Plans are to release the final,
detailed proposed Federal budget on April 3, an analyst from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) reported to NCSE.
These budget numbers will change ONLY if there is a strong and sustained
response from the scientific community and members of the public.
We urge you and your colleagues to write to:
*** Mitch Daniels, Director, Office of Management and Budget , New
Executive Office Building, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20500
*** President George W. Bush, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave,
Washington, DC 20503
*** Your Senators. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510
http://congress.nw.dc.us/rollcall/
*** Your Congressional Representative, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515 (ask that they send letters to OMB in support of
science funding) http://congress.nw.dc.us/rollcall/
*** Your local newspaper (see attached editorial by David Warsh of the
Boston Globe)
http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/051/business/Seed_corn_anyone_+.shtml
Please send a copy of your letter to NCSE at cnie@cnie.orgô or fax
202-628-4311.
A sample letter can be found at www.cnie.org/updates/bushsample.htm
Heads of institutions are asked to sign a group letter that NCSE will
send to President Bush and Director Daniels. To be included in the
letter, fax your signature, name and title to NCSE at 202-628-4311 no
later than March 7.
1725 K Street, N.W. Suite 212
Washington, DC 20006-1401
202/530-5810 cnie@cnie.org
Fax 202/628-4311 www.cnie.org
THE BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL FOLLOWS
The rationale underlying the Bush economic policy came into sharper
focus last week when the news surfaced that the administration was
planning to cut back sharply on the science budget in order to make room
for its tax cuts.
David Rogers reported in the Wall Street Journal Friday that under
current plans, funding for the National Science Foundation will climb
only 1 percent in the fiscal year that begins in October.
The budget of the National Institutes of Health, which sponsors most of
the nation's basic medical and biotech research, is scheduled to
continue to soar, by as much as $3.4 billion, under a prior legislative
agreement that calls for doubling its budget over five years.
But the US Geological Survey, which among its other duties monitors
water and ecological conditions, is slated for a 22 percent cut - nearly
a quarter of its $885 million budget.
The news leaked after a Wednesday meeting of White House budget director
Mitch Daniels and moderate Republican leadership of the House of
Representatives. GOP legislators were quick to make their disapproval
known.
''Absurd,'' Representative James Walsh of New York told Rogers. Walsh is
the Appropriations Committee member who oversees the NSF budget.
Meanwhile, the nation's universities, where most of the NSF's research
is performed, have begun to mobilize.
The Bush administration's desire to cut back sharply from the relatively
generous science funding of recent years stems from its wish to hold
budget increases to about the rate of inflation. The idea is to tightly
cap the third of the budget subject to annual appropriations in order to
facilitate big tax cuts.
Last week the president told the GOP budget-writing team he wants to
hold the appropriations portion of his budget to an increase of about 4
percent when he presents it to Congress next week in a nationally
televised address. But he also wants
to increase defense appropriations by around 10 percent, a rate of
growth about which there exists a broad bipartisan consensus.
To do that means very slow growth or outright cuts in the other half of
the discretionary budget, which includes almost everything the
government does except Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Nobody
wants to cut education or law enforcement or transportation
infrastructure or low-income housing or the Veterans Administration. So
sticking it to the R&D budget is one of the alternatives.
Why cap the budget so tightly? To make room for that 10-year, $1.6
trillion tax cut, of course. But what's so important about that number
that it justifies clamping down on the scientific spending that
constitutes our seed corn? The answer: Nothing at all.
The Bush tax plan has its origins in the sense that it wasn't fair to
quickly override the bipartisan tax reform act of 1986 that closed
myriad loopholes in order to establish just two brackets for the income
tax - with a top rate of 28 percent. First on the eve of the Gulf War,
George H.W. Bush agreed to raise the top rate to 31 percent, in exchange
for government spending cuts. Then in 1993, Bill Clinton pushed the top
rate to 39.6 percent, in the name of deficit reduction.
With the elimination of a $125,000 ceiling on a 2.9 percent Medicare
payroll tax, that put the top rate at 42 percent - too high for the
spirit of 1986 and the broad Reagan consensus it represented. Some part
of Bush's tax cuts are merited on grounds of fairness alone.
But surely there is no need to make these cuts all at once. The
well-to-do prospered greatly during the '90s boom. A 42 percent marginal
rate didn't seem to slow growth much at all. So why not cut the top tax
bracket to, say, 35 percent for now? And keep government spending on
science intact?
David Warsh can be reached by e-mail at warsh@globe.com.
This story ran on page C01 of the Boston Globe on 2/20/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
--
Kevin Hutton, Webmaster
National Council for Science and the Environment
1725 K St. NW Suite 212 Washington, DC 20006
http://www.cnie.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:08:29 -0800
From: Dave Ward <daveward@NWLINK.COM>
Subject: Humpty Dumpty - Why Preservation versus Restoration?
I'm a little concerned that this discussion has been limited to an
evaluation of restoration versus preservation. Why not both?
The philosophy behind any preservation program is to ensure that we don't
move backward, losing functional or near functional habitat processes in one
place while we are trying to restore them from scratch in another.
Restoring ecosystem processes is far more expensive and difficult than
preserving those that are already functional. (Try a web search using the
keywords "invasive species" for a small sample of some of the challenges.)
The best we can do to restore habitat is to set a few habitat-forming
processes in motion and wait for those processes (if we did it right) to do
the real work.
As a restoration professional, I would feel like I was spinning my wheels if
I knew that nobody was out there trying to preserve those relatively
undisturbed habitats. As an individual, I work by day in a restoration
capacity and by night on the board of a regional land conservancy.
Restoration without preservation might assure job security for some of us,
but we'll be working despite ourselves.
Dave Ward
Habitat Restoration Projects Manager
Stilly-Snohomish Fisheries Enhancement Task Force
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Heidi Hillhouse
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:40 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
I wish I had information on the success rates of
restoration vs. preservation of ecosystems, but I
don't. Maybe someone else on the list...?
I can and have documented the effects of fire on some
ecosystems. I wasn't stating that frequent fires can
be harmeful, although that is certainly true. More, I
was stating that stopping wildfires in habitat
preserves can negatively impact ecosystems. Prairie
systems in particular are well documented to benefit
from an occasional burning, although details on what
the proper interval for maximum diversity is are still
under discussion. Another example- in Yellowstone
forest, there are tree species specialized in
reproduction after a fire- the seeds stay confined in
cones or other structures and unable to germinate
until the high temperatures associated with fire cause
them to be released (sorry, don't have the exact tree
species handy).
Prairie systems are the ones I'm personally most
familiar with, so my examples tend to be in those
terms. I know that even the oldest restoration
project that I'm aware of (over 70 years old now) has
a significantly diffrent microbial community, bird
community, and plant diversity and distribution than a
protected (read- preserved) area close to it. Even
after all we have learned, we can't come close to
recreating the interactions an undisturbed area.
Granted, it's possible that we are still examining too
short of a time scale, but this is the best
information available to date.
I guess in summary, I would say that I favor neither
restoration or preservation. They both have severe
limitations. Whenever possible, I think that
salvaging any existing community interactions in
degraded ecosystems is preferable to attempting to
recreate it from the bottom up. From that point of
veiw, preservation provides a better starting point,
even in highly degraded areas. Of course, it would be
nice if neither of these practices were necessary, but
the reality demands a more pragmatic approach.
Heidi
--- Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET> wrote:
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:48:52 -0800
From: Derya Esen <guzelfethiyeli@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: EU forestry companies
Hi,
I am looking for the (web) addresses of major forestry
companies in Europe selling research equipment, a
company like Forestry Suppliers or Ben Meadows in the
US. Can anyone could help me with this ?
Thanks in advance
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:53:24 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Habitats, species, and such
--=====================_158352240==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Yeah Stan, as usual you can be depended upon to cut through the
pretense. To me, "preservation" is a "mere" (but damned important) act of
will bedded in common sense (well, at least in my dreams). But as one who
has filched a living by "doing the best I can" for the last 30+ years, I
would have to defend my actions (in the face of my oft-repeated statement
that nine-tenths of the hell being raised in the world is
well-intentioned). Could I be in the oneth percentile? Only examination
of specific can tell for "sure." If it's any consolation, the first
"phase" of my evaluation discipline consists of the question: "What will
happen if we just lay-off?" Then I try to lay down as few thin layers of
action as possible. Since I retired this year, the earth can rest a little
easier.
Best,
WT
At 11:46 AM 02/21/2001 -0800, Stan Rowe wrote:
>Say Wayne, isn't the problem that the complexity of ecosystems (not
>communities plus environment) exceeds the complexity of the circuitry of
>our brains? So in good scientific reductive fashion we jump on the thing
>we think we can handle, the simple parts, the individual organisms
>generalized as "species." We think that we can preserve or restore speci
s
>if we can just get the hang of it and therefore set our minds to that
>task, focusing on particular plants and animals to which we attribute
>"habitat preferences" and the ability to "select habitats." Of course
>these are over-simplifications, as "habitat" is one of the wooly words.
>Strict "preservation" alone maintains the structure and function of
>semi-natural and natural ecosystems such as Old Growth Forests on
>Fire-Proof Well-Watered Landforms With Cool Microclimates and Suitable
>Soils. "Restoration" will always be a relative term, meaning to the
>sensitive: "Gee we're sorry we were so stoopid, and now we'd like to mak
>amends, but we don't really know how, so we're doing the best we can." T
>which the Earth might well respond with two words: Lay Off !
> Stan
--=====================_158352240==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
Yeah Stan, as usual you can be depended upon to cut through the
pretense. To me, "preservation" is a "mere"
(but damned important) act of will bedded in common sense (well, at least
in my dreams). But as one who has filched a living by "doing
the best I can" for the last 30+ years, I would have to defend my
actions (in the face of my oft-repeated statement that nine-tenths of the
hell being raised in the world is well-intentioned). Could I be in
the oneth percentile? Only examination of specific can tell for
"sure." If it's any consolation, the first
"phase" of my evaluation discipline consists of the question:
"What will happen if we just lay-off?" Then I try to lay
down as few thin layers of action as possible. Since I retired this
year, the earth can rest a little easier. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
WT<br>
<br>
<br>
At 11:46 AM 02/21/2001 -0800, Stan Rowe wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Say Wayne, isn't the problem
that
the complexity of ecosystems (<b>not</b> communities plus enviro
ment)
exceeds the complexity of the circuitry of our brains? So in good
scientific reductive fashion we jump on the things we think we can
handle, the simple parts, the individual organisms generalized as
"species." We think that we can preserve or restore species if
we can just get the hang of it and therefore set our minds to that task,
focusing on particular plants and animals to which we attribute
"habitat preferences" and the ability to "select
habitats." Of course these are over-simplifications, as
"habitat" is one of the wooly words. Strict
"preservation" alone maintains the structure and function of
semi-natural and natural ecosystems such as Old Growth Forests on
Fire-Proof Well-Watered Landforms With Cool Microclimates and Suitable
Soils. "Restoration" will always be a relative term, meaning to
the sensitive: "Gee we're sorry we were so stoopid, and now we'd
like to make amends, but we don't really know how, so we're doing the
best we can." To which the Earth might well respond with two words:
<b>Lay Off !<br>
</b><x-tab> </
-tab>Stan</blo=
ckquote><br>
</html>
--=====================_158352240==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:37:27 -0500
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Global appetite for farmed fish devouring world's wild fish supplie
18 FEBRUARY 2001 AT 18:00 ET US
Contact: Nancy Baron
tojohnson@seaweb.org
202-437-5502
Valerie Holford
888-429-4988 pager
SeaWeb
Global appetite for farmed fish devouring world's wild fish supplies
New global study shows the combined impacts of capture fisheries and
aquaculture are depleting marine food webs from the top down and the
bottom up
Just as the California energy crisis shows what happens when you don't
plan ahead for increasing demands on limited resources, we may be headed
for a similar crisis in the seas. Today, at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Meeting in San Francisco, an
international group of scientists will present new findings on
unintended impacts of fish farming that put both oceans and the
aquaculture industry at risk. Dr. Daniel Pauly of the University of
British Columbia Fisheries Centre will release a new global study,
"Farming Up Marine Food Webs" showing that major sectors of the booming
aquaculture industry are literally feeding on world fisheries.
Aquaculture, the fastest growing sector of the world food economy, is
increasing by 11% a year. Many people expect this growth to relieve
pressure on ocean fish stocks, most of which are now fished beyond
capacity, and to provide a reliable source of food to a world population
that adds 78 million people each year. Paradoxically, Pauly's new study
shows that the increasing trend toward farming carnivorous fish means
that many types of aquaculture are pushing us towards a worldwide
collapse of wild fisheries. Production of a single pound of fish-eating
species such as shrimp, salmon, tuna or cod demands 2 to 5 lbs. of wild
caught fish that is processed into meal and oil for feeds.
Pauly previously discovered a global pattern of fishing down the food
chain, putting more pressure on lower level species as we exhaust the
bigger carnivorous fish. (Pauly et al. Feb.6,1998, Science) Conversely,
his new analysis demonstrates that the mean trophic level (relative
position of organisms within food chains) of farmed fish has been
rapidly increasing in almost all regions of the world outside Asia.
The new study discovered that traditional aquaculture -farming fish that
eat plants and detritus-is being replaced by modern intensive farming of
large, carnivorous fish because overfishing has decimated these fish in
the wild. Even in Asia, the ancient home of aquaculture, vegetarian fish
like tilapia and carp are now being fed fishmeal and fish oil for faster
weight gain and marketability. "The new trend in aquaculture is to drain
the seas to feed the farms. Meanwhile capture fisheries now focus on
what we once considered bait. These two trends- farming up and fishing
down the food web imply massive impacts on marine ecosystems that are
clearly unsustainable," says Pauly.
At the AAAS meetings in San Francisco, a panel of seven international
scientists are presenting data showing that aquaculture is necessary to
the world's future food security, but warn that the growing demands of
the world's food production systems upon a finite quantity of resources
means that all aquatic and terrestrial farming systems must become more
efficient. Cost-benefit analyses into the viability of certain kinds of
aquaculture must incorporate externalities: fisheries decline, aquatic
pollution, habitat destruction and impacts on wild stocks. Examples of
"good aquaculture" practices include farming vegetarian species and
employing polyculture that recycles nutrients and minimizes effluents.
Dr. Jason Clay will also release the findings of a three year study by
WWF, the World Bank, FAO and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia
Pacific on the best and worst practices of shrimp farming. Shrimp
farming now produces half of all internationally traded shrimp. Raising
800,000 metric tonnes yearly world wide, for a total value of US $6
billion, the industry is said to generate benefits for cash strapped
countries. Ironically, disease-induced "boom and bust" shrimp farming
has resulted in increasing poverty and landlessness, declining food
security, and break down of traditional livelihood systems. Impacts have
included the destruction of mangroves and wetlands, the large-scale
capture of wild larvae and brood-stock, pollution, use of chemicals and
antibiotics, intensive fish meal demands and the privatization of public
resources.
"Aquaculture is at a critical crossroads," declares Dr. Albert Tacon,
head of the Oceanic Institute's Aquatic Feeds and Nutrition Program in
Hawaii. "Fish farming could decrease pressure on fisheries and feed the
worlds growing population. That's why it is so important to proceed on a
sustainable path."
Consumer markets ultimately dictate the type of fish farming that
farmers will employ. Consumers should look for vegetarian fish that feed
low on the food web including catfish, tilapia, oysters and other
shellfish. Aquaculture also needs new policies that will reward the
aquaculture industry for engaging in best sustainable practices. " To
date, fish farming has been separated from ocean fisheries in
regulation, management and mindset," states Stanford economist Dr. Roz
Naylor who chairs today's session at AAAS. "It is high time both public
and private interests think of these sectors jointly. Without sound
ecological practices, the expanding aquaculture industry poses a threat
not only to ocean fisheries, but also to itself."
###
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/sw-gaf021601.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:07:05 -0800
From: Heidi Hillhouse <asalufa@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty - Why Preservation versus Restoration?
Sorry! I think clarification is in order! I don't
think anybody was implying that we should only do
preservation OR restoration- rather we were discussing
the advantages and disadvantages of both. Also- in
reality, these are not mutually exclusive. Restoring
degraded but preserved areas is certainly feasible-
and probably preferable- to starting from bare dirt.
Restoring preserved areas may require a more indepth
understanding of the system than starting from
scratch, since there are already organism established
in the area. You may or may not want to keep a given
species in that type of area, depending on it's
competativeness, invasiveness, or resistance to other
species. Also- naturalized non-native species need to
be considered too, along with the pragmatic issue of
cost of removal!
In some areas, pure preservation approaches which
simply eliminate disturbances can be nearly as
distructive to the underlying system as plowing up a
grassland. Grasslands (in areas not strictly water
limited) are largely maintained by herbivory and fire.
Eliminating these disturbances leads to the eventual
destruction of the grassland, as it will often be
quickly overrun by trees, shrubs, and other woody
species. Some areas in Europe that have been in
constant cultivation (non-plowed crops) for hundreds
of years have developed flora adapted to that
disturbance regime. Does preservation mean leaving
these areas alone completely, and preventing
disturbance? To do so will lead to the degradation
and eventual elimination of that habitat type.
Restoration or maintainance of these areas are as
critical as their initial preservation.
Preservation and restoration are by no means easy!
They can be very complex, and the success of a project
can depend greatly on what the defined goal is.
Heidi
--- Dave Ward <daveward@NWLINK.COM> wrote:
> I'm a little concerned that this discussion has been
> limited to an
> evaluation of restoration versus preservation. Why
> not both?
>
> The philosophy behind any preservation program is to
> ensure that we don't
> move backward, losing functional or near functional
> habitat processes in one
> place while we are trying to restore them from
> scratch in another.
>
> Restoring ecosystem processes is far more expensive
> and difficult than
> preserving those that are already functional. (Try a
> web search using the
> keywords "invasive species" for a small sample of
> some of the challenges.)
> The best we can do to restore habitat is to set a
> few habitat-forming
> processes in motion and wait for those processes (if
> we did it right) to do
> the real work.
>
> As a restoration professional, I would feel like I
> was spinning my wheels if
> I knew that nobody was out there trying to preserve
> those relatively
> undisturbed habitats. As an individual, I work by
> day in a restoration
> capacity and by night on the board of a regional
> land conservancy.
>
> Restoration without preservation might assure job
> security for some of us,
> but we'll be working despite ourselves.
>
> Dave Ward
> Habitat Restoration Projects Manager
> Stilly-Snohomish Fisheries Enhancement Task Force
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:36:24 -0500
From: "Andrew J. Burton" <ajburton@MTU.EDU>
Subject: graduate student and post-doc positions at Michigan Tech
The following two positions are currently available at Michigan
Technological University.
Graduate Research Fellowship (PhD) available for quantitatively oriented
student with interest in forest C and N cycling and soil foodwebs.
Stipend $18,000/yr plus tuition and fees for three years. The student will
study and model belowground C and N cycling in northern hardwood forests
and the processing of C and N by the soil foodweb. The student will be
expected to use analytical approaches to capture quantitative behavior of
the belowground ecological system. The fellowship is one of seven being
funded nationwide as part of an NSF sponsored ecological circuitry
collaboratory involving multiple universities. The overall aim of the
collaboratory is to increase the number of quantitatively-oriented
professionals in the ecological sciences. The students and investigators
that comprise the collaboratory will meet annually for short courses and
the exchange of ideas and information. Interested students should send
their CV, a statement of research interests, copies of transcripts and GRE
scores (unofficial), and the names, phone numbers and email addresses of
three references to Dr. Kurt Pregitzer, School of Forestry and Wood
Products, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931. For
additional information please visit the ecological circuitry web page at
http://www.ecostudies.org/cc or email Dr. Kurt Pregitzer at kspregit@mtu.edu
Post-Doctoral Position. Forest Ecology. One year appointment, renewable
up to three years. Research on belowground C and N cycling in northern
hardwood forests receiving chronic N additions. Research areas include,
root and mycorrhizal longevity and turnover, root and leaf litter tissue
chemistry and decomposition, production and chemical characterization of
DOC, and root and soil respiration. Research goals are to delineate the
mechanisms underlying observed changes in ecosystem C and N cycling
following seven years of simulated N deposition. Send statement of
research interests, CV, copies of transcripts, and the names, phone numbers
and email addresses of three references to Dr. Kurt Pregitzer, School of
Forestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
49931. For additional information please email Dr. Kurt Pregitzer at
kspregit@mtu.edu.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:30:25 -0600
From: "D. Liane Cochran-Stafira" <cochran@SXU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Field Guide
Darren,
Contact the following publisher. They usually have lots of Russian
publications, some of which I believe are in English.
KOELTZ SCIENTIFIC BOOKS
Booksellers & Publishers in the Fields of Botany & Zoology
P.O.Box 1360
D 61453 Koenigstein / Germany
European VAT ID: DE111217925
Phone:
International: +49 / 6174 93720
National: 06174 93720
Fax:
International: +49 / 6174 937240
National:06174 937240
E-Mail: koeltz@t-online.de
(Or: koeltz@attglobal.net)
Internet: http://www.koeltz.com
At 05:22 PM 2/21/01 -0800, you wrote:
>I intend to travel to eastern Siberia this summer in the region of the
>city of Magadan. I am looking for a field guide to the flora of the
>region. My preference is for a floristic key written in english. At
>the least a picture guide (wildflower guide) in Russian with color
>pictures. Does anyone have a recommendation.
>
>Darren Loomis
>Christopher Newport University
>
>
***************************
Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Saint Xavier University
3700 West 103rd Street
Chicago, Illinois 60655
phone: 773-298-3514
fax: 773-779-9061
email: cochran@sxu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:14 -0000
From: Chris Borg <ckborg@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Science Spending to be Slashed in first Bush Budget
Hi folks,
It seems like the hypocriscy of this administration is showing itself
quickly... they tell the public that "more scientific research is needed"
before we commit ourselves to policies such as those pertaining to global
climate change, yet they cut research budgets. We need a concerted effort
to bring this issue to the front of the public sector.
-Chris
FIU/SERC
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:29:34 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L: Clarity of scientific terminology (Re: Habitat
Yaron Ziv and Honorable Forum:
I'm sorry that you, Yaron, were offended. Perhaps it's cultural. I just
love Yiddish (humorous, frequently sarcastic expressions), but perhaps my
inadequate knowledge of it has caused me to misapply it. It was intended
to lighten up the discussion, to be humorous. Cross-cultural humor poses
problems, but it also exposes us to the spirit of other cultures--for me, I
prefer to learn the nuances of other cultures, so I freely expose those of
mine, as I see them. I apologize for changing the subject heading and I
thank you for this valid criticism. I think we all should be more careful
to stick to the original "thread," although we should freely add
subheadings when appropriate.
Thank you, Yaron, for the references. This is a positive response, but
incomplete. I'm interested in YOUR opinion. Speaking of cultural nuances
and such, I find your (Yaron's) response to be condescending. I suspect
that you are more offended by my challenge to conventional, established
wisdom than by my "rudeness." Disagree, by all means, but please do
participate in the discussion by offering us your own reasoned response to
the challenge. I reiterate that I submit that this issue (note that I had
given it a more respectable main subject heading, realizing myself that
"habitat selection, schmelection" was inaccurate) is worthy of discussion
to a reasoned resolution rather than an exchange of opinions. This will
benefit those "unwashed" among us who just want to know what you experts
are really talking about. If the difference between the terms is "very
clear," would it require several references to clearly state those
differences? Seems like an easy task for an expert.
Respectfully submitted,
WT
At 09:48 PM 02/21/2001 +0200, Yaron Ziv wrote:
> selection, schmelection)
>
>First, I think that the changed subject name: "Habitat selection,
>schmelection" is impolite (some might even say rude) in a way that makes
me
>feel quite uncomfortable.
>Second, I think that, at least for a certain group of people who work on
>these issues on a daily basis, the difference between habitat selection
nd
>habitat preference is very clear. Furthermore, the distinction relies o
>solid population-dynamics based body of theory. Since we will never be
>able to get all the information (definitely not the heavy stuff) from
>listserv discussion (which has its great contribution for other things),
I
>recommend those who are interested in getting into the details to go
>through the relevant literature. In a previous message, I have enclosed
a
>list of publications. I think that reading just the following papers wi
l
>give a good picture on this school:
>
>Fretwell, S. D. and H. L. J. Lucas (1969). "On territorial behavior and
>other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds." Acta
>Biotheoretica 19: 16-36.
>
>Rosenzweig, M. L. (1991). "Habitat selection and population interactions
>the search for mechanism." American Naturalist 137: S5-S28.
>
>Rosenzweig, M. L. and Z. Abramsky (1997). "Two gerbils of the Negev: a
>long-term investigation of optimal habitat selection and its consequence
."
>Evolutionary Ecology 11: 733-756.
>
>All the best,
>
>-- Yaron Ziv
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:35:48 -0500
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: National Park Service web site for research and collecting permits
The National Park Service has created an Internet-based
site for its Research and Collecting Permits. The site
covers all National Park Units in the United States. The
web site is:
http://science.nature.nps.gov/research
The web site has been designed to be a comprehensive
location for researchers to:
-- have the opportunity to review procedures, previous
research efforts, policies, and conditional requirements
before submitting a new proposal.
-- search NPS-identified research preferences (the system
is new and park staff may not provide this information for
several months).
-- complete and submit an application for a permit via the
Internet.
-- file required Investigator's Annual Reports via the
Internet.
We look forward to encouraging scientists, agencies,
non-profits, and all researchers and research institutions
to consider the U.S. National Parks as a good place for
science that provides public benefits to all citizens.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:35:56 -0500
From: Kevin Hutton <khutton@CNIE.ORG>
Subject: LA Times Request: Input on Environment & Cinema
Mr. Gary Polakovic of the LA Times asked us if the scientific community
had any thoughts about how environmental issues and environmentalists
are portrayed in movies. If anyone has any thoughts, please respond
generally or to him personally: gary.polakovic@latimes.com This might be
a chance to be quoted in his article.
--
Kevin Hutton, Webmaster
National Council for Science and the Environment
1725 K St. NW Suite 212 Washington, DC 20006
http://www.cnie.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:40:37 -0800
From: "Jeffrey D. Corbin" <corbin@SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Science Spending to be Slashed in first Bush Budget
Chris - Help those of us who might write our local papers with the specifics
What is a reference or quote regarding Bush's global warming stand?
If we can juxtapose the funding priorities with past statements about the
benefits of research, it will make the counterarguments that much stronger.
-Jeff Corbin
At 06:44 PM 2/22/01 +0000, Chris Borg wrote:
>Hi folks,
>It seems like the hypocriscy of this administration is showing itself
>quickly... they tell the public that "more scientific research is needed
>before we commit ourselves to policies such as those pertaining to globa
>climate change, yet they cut research budgets. We need a concerted effo
t
>to bring this issue to the front of the public sector.
>-Chris
>FIU/SERC
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
****************************************
Jeffrey D. Corbin
Department of Integrative Biology, VLSB#3060
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3140
(510) 643-5430
****************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:28:55 -0800
From: Beth Michaels <bamichaels@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Thanks...
to those on the list who took the time to answer my
preference vs. selection question, especially at this
late stage in the discussion. This list is a great
resource, as well as being highly entertaining on
occassion (Tim!).
Cheers.
Beth
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:44:07 -0500
From: Jonathan Stern <stern@BIO.FSU.EDU>
Subject: field guide
Darren,
please be careful. a few years ago a friend of mine was working in
eastern siberia, ate some mushrooms, and almost died. this was with
people that lived in the area and knew about these things. it was
odd, they made a stew with a variety of vegetables and different
types of wild mushrooms. out of about a dozen people at dinner, he
was the only one to get sick. i wonder what was the probability of
only him eating the poison mushrooms. you would have to know the
relative density of....oh, nevermind..take care and dosvedonya (i am
positive the spelling is incorrect)
cheers,
jon
--
S. Jonathan Stern, Ph.D
Department of Biological Science
Conradi Bldg.
Florida State University
Tallahassee FL 32306
(850) 645-5788
stern@bio.fsu.edu
********************************
When life gets to be a drag *
Escape to a higher Reynold's Number *
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:06:24 -0500
From: Barbara Bugosh <bbugosh@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Post Doctoral Fellow Position
Can you please post the following ad for us -
Environmental Social Science. A post-doctoral fellow position is
available immediately in the Center for Integrated Assessment of the
Human Dimensions of Global Change. Based in the Department of
Engineering and Public Policy, the Center is an interdisciplinary
network, with members at institutions in the US and abroad.
[http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/] The fellow would work in interdisciplinary
groups, bringing social science knowledge to bear on environmental
problems, as well as conduct relevant basic research. A doctorate in
any social science discipline is required. The Center, Department,
University activities, and Pittsburgh, are lively, friendly places.
Carnegie Mellon University is an AA/EEO employer. Please mail
applications to Granger Morgan, EPP, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Include
a resume, writing sample, statement of research interests, and list of
potential references.
Barbara J. Bugosh
Assistant Director
Carnegie Mellon University
EPP:HDGC
129 Baker Hall
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-5486
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:38:19 -0800
From: kristin streng <idaquawoman@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: scented foliage adaptation?
--0-307450422-982874299=:64381
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Good afternoon,
Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant having scented
vegetative parts? For example both Sage and Ceanothus plants have scented
vegetative parts. Is this to attract pollinators? To promote herbivory? H
w
is scented foliage an adaptation? Thank you,
Kristin Streng
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
--0-307450422-982874299=:64381
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Good afternoon,</P>
<P>Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant having scen
ed
vegetative parts? For example both Sage and <EM>Ceanothus </
M>plants
have scented vegetative parts. Is this to attract pollinators? T
promote herbivory? How is scented foliage an adaptation? Thank
you, </P>
<P>Kristin Streng</P><p><br><hr size=1><b>
Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href=http://auctions.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - Buy the
hings you want
at great prices!
--0-307450422-982874299=:64381--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:32:15 -0700
From: "(Jackie Schnurr)" <schnjacl@ISU.EDU>
Subject: Geology list server?
Hey there,
I was wondering if anyone knows of a geology list server similar to
ECOLOG?
Thanks for any information,
Jackie Schnurr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:49:16 -0500
From: Joseph Dean Cornell <jcornell@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: scented foliage adaptation - can of worms
Dear Kristin,
Your question opens up a great big fat can of worms, namely, does
every character confer an adaptive advantage or have a "purpose"?
Who says that scent is an advantage? A more straigthforward anser to
your quesiton however is that strong "scents" are associated with
secondary compounds which often do confer protection from herbivory. But
does every character have to have a use? My personal intuition is that,
to misqoute Freud, sometimes a blue foot is just a blue foot.
Yours,
Joseph Cornell
301 Illick Hall
SUNY ESF
Syracuse, NY 13210
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, kristin streng wrote:
> Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant having scented
> vegetative parts? For example both Sage and Ceanothus plants have sce
ted
> vegetative parts. Is this to attract pollinators? To promote herbivor
? How
> is scented foliage an adaptation? Thank you,
>
> Kristin Streng
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
> --0-307450422-982874299=:64381
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
> <P>Good afternoon,</P>
> <P>Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant having
scented
> vegetative parts? For example both Sage and <EM>Ceanothus <
/EM>plants
> have scented vegetative parts. Is this to attract pollinato
s? To
> promote herbivory? How is scented foliage an adaptation? T
ank
> you, </P>
> <P>Kristin Streng</P><p><br><hr size=1><
b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
> <a href=http://auctions.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - Buy
the things you
want
> at great prices!
> --0-307450422-982874299=:64381--
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:35:41 -0900
From: John DiBari <johnd@ALASKAPACIFIC.EDU>
Subject: Habitat selection/preference
Dear habitat preference/selection gang:
From my perspective habitat selection is either one or a combination of
learned or instinctual response(s) to environmental cues. If the
environment contains the presence and/or absence of proper cues required
for an individual to survive, then that area (i.e., habitat) will be
selected. Preference is an interesting concept. Certainly it is a
judgement we as humans seem to be able to make -- though this may be a
luxury. I assume it is one that other organisms are able to make too
though the conditions required for it to occur may be extenuating.
The problem with assigning a degree of preference to selected habitat is
that the condition of the environment (at numerous scales), and the
condition of the individual doing the selecting, vary. If an individual is
present in an area, by definition that area is some kind of habitat (e.g.,
it may be breeding habitat, feeding habitat, resting habitat, dispersal
habitat, etc.) However, environmental or individual conditions may be
stressed to the point that the individual is responding to the presence or
absence of only one (or a small number of) environmental cue(s). In this
light, habitat preference is reduced to the lowest common denominator --
selection. Selection equals the minimum set of cues necessary to elicit a
response of choice. To make any other choice would mean death.
Yaron raised the idea of Ideal Free Distribution (IFD, Fretwell and Lucas
1969). Distribution is ideal because the individual selects habitat that
will "best" meet its needs. It is free if there are no impediments (i.e.,
density dependent factors) to settling in or using that area.
The idea behind IFD is that the highest quality habitat is selected by
individuals until it assumes the characteristics of the next lowest quality
habitat, then the second best quality habitat is selected until it assumes
the characteristics of the next lowest quality habitat, and so on. This
habitat "degradation" is the result of increasing intraspecific
density. Ultimately, all habitats are of equal quality. While this is a
worthy idea, I think it is more an academic explanation than a practical
explanation.
If IFD were carried to its logical conclusion, there would be no such thing
as preferred or highest quality habitat. That is, individuals would reduce
all habitat to the same quality -- relatively speaking the lowest
quality. Thus, preference as it has been discussed would be moot.
Rather my view is that when an organism encounters an environment with the
proper cues, that area (i.e., habitat) is selected -- regardless of
quality. To do otherwise would be suicide. As prior knowledge does not
exist, and searching uses valuable energy and increases vulnerability,
there is a potentially fatal cost of passing up low quality habitat in the
"hope" of finding something better. Some individuals are just luckier than
others are. Some find the "best" habitat and some find the
"worst." Regardless, I would say that all individuals choose the "best"
available habitat.
When conditions in the lowest quality habitat become poor enough (e.g.,
settling cues disappear) certain individuals will leave. Some of them will
be lucky and find unoccupied habitat, some maybe lucky enough to find
unoccupied habitat of higher quality, some may die. I think that if we
could ask individuals if they would "prefer" the best habitat they would
say yes, provided they have knowledge of what that means. However, as a
matter of practicality they will probably take whatever they can get.
From a conservation perspective, we humans should endeavor to identify,
then protect as much of the "best" quality habitat possible. This habitat
ensures a large enough population that all available habitat (regardless of
quality) is occupied.
However, identifying the "best" quality habitat is another point for
discussion.
PS: Hi Yaron. This is John (Mangiameli) from Arizona. As you can see, my
name has changed.
*******************************************************
John DiBari
Instructor & GIS Lab Manager
Alaska Pacific University
4101 University Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
Phone: 907.564.8309 (office)
907.564.8352 (lab)
Email: johnd@alaskapacific.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:50:26 -0700
From: Dave Whitacre <dwhitacre@PEREGRINEFUND.ORG>
Subject: habitat selection--more terms for?
This thread is timely for me, as I am finishing a paper on "habitat
affinities" (or
associations, or use, or selection) of certain raptors. What I am
talking about is
simply the fact that certain species were usually found in certain
habitats--I don't
pretend to describe their preferences. I had been leaning toward
referring to these
species-habitat correlations as habitat associations, habitat use, or
habitat
affinities (essentially interchangeably), in a purely descriptive
sense--i.e.,
meaning that species X was often found in habitat Y, for whatever
reason.
I take it from discussion so far, that most people would be happiest
with me calling
this habitat selection? Will you veto my use of "use", "association" or
"affinity"?
While I understand the use of the term "habitat selection" that has been
expounded
here, I have never much liked the term, as it seems to me to impute more
of an
intentional act by the organism than may often be the case. If I am a
forest eagle
clinging to a traditional nest site, and hunting in the surrounding,
increasingly
deforested landscape--likely suboptimal, but the best I can make of a
bad deal--am I
selecting this habitat? Or merely using it? Am I not demonstrating a
habitat
association? (be it a preferred one or not). I suppose "affinity" sounds
to much
like preference?
thanks for any thoughts, and I'll be content to let this horse die soon,
Dave Whitacre
--
David F. Whitacre
The Peregrine Fund
566 W. Flying Hawk Lane
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208) 362-3716
dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:10:08 -0600
From: David McNeely <mcneely@UTB1.UTB.EDU>
Subject: Re: scented foliage adaptation - can of worms
While I agree with what Joseph says, let me suggest something.
Animals develop bright colors and/or striking patterns, often in association
with
chemical defenses ("Look out, I stink, taste bad, bite, am toxic ...........
..
"). Predators learn these features and avoid them. Many animals that prey
n
plants find them not only via their colors and patterns, but their volatile
chemicals. Could loud smells of foliage be analogous to warning coloration
n
animals? If the smells are indeed associated with chemical defenses -- migh
it
work?
Don't laugh while I can still hear you, please.
Joseph Dean Cornell wrote:
> Dear Kristin,
> Your question opens up a great big fat can of worms, namely, does
> every character confer an adaptive advantage or have a "purpose"?
> Who says that scent is an advantage? A more straigthforward anser to
> your quesiton however is that strong "scents" are associated with
> secondary compounds which often do confer protection from herbivory. B
t
> does every character have to have a use? My personal intuition is that
> to misqoute Freud, sometimes a blue foot is just a blue foot.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joseph Cornell
> 301 Illick Hall
> SUNY ESF
> Syracuse, NY 13210
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, kristin streng wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant having sce
ted
> > vegetative parts? For example both Sage and Ceanothus plants hav
scented
> > vegetative parts. Is this to attract pollinators? To promote her
ivory?
How
> > is scented foliage an adaptation? Thank you,
> >
> > Kristin Streng
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
> > --0-307450422-982874299=:64381
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > <P>Good afternoon,</P>
> > <P>Does anyone know what would be the advantage of a plant h
ving scented
> > vegetative parts? For example both Sage and <EM>Ceano
hus </EM>plants
> > have scented vegetative parts. Is this to attract poll
nators?
To
> > promote herbivory? How is scented foliage an adaptation?&nb
p; Thank
> > you, </P>
> > <P>Kristin Streng</P><p><br><hr size=1>
<b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
> > <a href=http://auctions.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Auctions</a>
Buy the things you
> want
> > at great prices!
> > --0-307450422-982874299=:64381--
> >
--
===============================================
"Are we there yet?" Source unknown
See my web page at http://unix.utb.edu/~mcneely
===============================================
David L. McNeely (Dave)
Professor and Graduate Coordinator
Biological Sciences
The University of Texas at Brownsville
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
Telephone (956) 544-8289 or 983-7578
FAX (956) 983-7115
mailto:mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:13:07 -0700
From: Kurt Reinhart <Reinhart@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject: plant ecology job
PLANT ECOLOGIST
TENURE-TRACK POSITION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
The Division of Biological Sciences invites applications for a
tenure-track Assistant/Associate Professor position in plant ecology, to
join a dynamic group of plant, animal, and microbial ecologists and
evolutionary biologists (start date: August 2001). The successful
candidate is expected to develop a vigorous, externally funded research
program that incorporates evolutionary perspectives or approaches into
the study of plant ecology, to interact with other faculty and students
(see http://umt.edu/biology/dbs), and to mentor undergraduate and
graduate students. We are especially interested in candidates whose
research complements current strengths in functional plant ecology.
Teaching expectations include participating in the undergraduate plant
biology core program and offering advanced and graduate courses in areas
of specialty. Requirements include a doctoral degree, significant plant
sciences background, a strong record of research accomplishments,
postdoctoral experience, and teaching interest. Competitive start-up
package available. Send letter of application, curriculum vitae,
statement of research goals, teaching interests and philosophy, and
three letters of reference to: Dr. Ragan Callaway, Chair, Plant
Ecologist Search Committee, Division of Biological Sciences, The
University of Montana, Missoula MT 59812. Telephone: 406/243-5122; FAX
406/243-4184. To receive full consideration, completed applications
should be received by March 19, 2001. The University of Montana is an
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. We encourage applications
from well-qualified women, minorities, veterans, and persons with
disabilities. Position is eligible for veteran s preference in
accordance with state law.
--
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Kurt Reinhart
The University of Montana
Division of Biological Sciences
Missoula, MT 59812
Office: (406) 243-5935
Fax: (509) 756-8036
E-mail: reinhart@selway.umt.edu
"although there is a Law of the Conservation of Matter,
there is no Law of the Conservation of Species." Elton 1958
------------------------------
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 20 Feb 2001 to 21 Feb 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 20 messages totalling 1323 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Humpty Dumpty (3)
2. Habitat selection, schmelection
3. ecological convergence
4. [Fwd: Dana Meadows]
5. Job: Earthwatch, Conservation Director
6. aquarium UV sterilizers???
7. job ad: seasonal bird field work
8. Free copies of Nature's latest issue, about the human genome
9. ECOLOG-L: Clarity of scientific terminology (Re: Habitat selection,
schmelection)
10. PhD RA or Postdoc
11. Climate Change Commentary
12. Fire Ecologist Positions
13. Botanical Term
14. Habitats, species, and such
15. seedbank sampling tips
16. tree ring stain solution
17. habitat selection
18. request for info on Antennaria flagellaris
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:39:37 -0800
From: Heidi Hillhouse <asalufa@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
I wish I had information on the success rates of
restoration vs. preservation of ecosystems, but I
don't. Maybe someone else on the list...?
I can and have documented the effects of fire on some
ecosystems. I wasn't stating that frequent fires can
be harmeful, although that is certainly true. More, I
was stating that stopping wildfires in habitat
preserves can negatively impact ecosystems. Prairie
systems in particular are well documented to benefit
from an occasional burning, although details on what
the proper interval for maximum diversity is are still
under discussion. Another example- in Yellowstone
forest, there are tree species specialized in
reproduction after a fire- the seeds stay confined in
cones or other structures and unable to germinate
until the high temperatures associated with fire cause
them to be released (sorry, don't have the exact tree
species handy).
Prairie systems are the ones I'm personally most
familiar with, so my examples tend to be in those
terms. I know that even the oldest restoration
project that I'm aware of (over 70 years old now) has
a significantly diffrent microbial community, bird
community, and plant diversity and distribution than a
protected (read- preserved) area close to it. Even
after all we have learned, we can't come close to
recreating the interactions an undisturbed area.
Granted, it's possible that we are still examining too
short of a time scale, but this is the best
information available to date.
I guess in summary, I would say that I favor neither
restoration or preservation. They both have severe
limitations. Whenever possible, I think that
salvaging any existing community interactions in
degraded ecosystems is preferable to attempting to
recreate it from the bottom up. From that point of
veiw, preservation provides a better starting point,
even in highly degraded areas. Of course, it would be
nice if neither of these practices were necessary, but
the reality demands a more pragmatic approach.
Heidi
--- Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET> wrote:
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:10:42 -0800
From: Timothy Brook Smith <timsmith@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Habitat selection, schmelection
> Honorable Forum:
>
> Where confusion persists, and/or communication is an exercise in semant
cs,
> could the terminology be weak?
It would appear that either way, if they "prefer"
> or "select" sub-optimal conditions that they will pay a "price" rather
han
> 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 togethe
?
This issue is important for some of the same reasons the "Humpty Dumpty" thr
ad
has managed to persist for several days. Communities of organisms are compl
x
aggregations of populations and individuals that interact differently depend
ng
on what other organisms and habitats are present. The parts are complex and
change with context. Simply recording the habitats or diet an organism selec
s
in one context doesn't provide certain information about the habitats it wil
select elsewhere, or the conditions that are "optimal" for that species or
population. Populations (or metapopulations) of organisms frequently persis
in
sub-optimal conditions...if you want to understand the mechanisms beneath th
patterns, you need to know the difference between what they prefer and what
hey
select.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:09:47 -0500
From: Linda Nagel <lmnagel@MTU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
Ecologists,
My first question to all of you is, what are you trying to restore?
Vegetation? Site? Habitat? Function? And what are you restoring back to?
I don't mean to start another round of discussion, but we as scientists and
managers arbitrarily choose a desirable condition based on a pre-determined
benchmark (usually pre-European settlement). Then we say, let's preserve
or restore back to that. You all realize, I'm sure, that this "ideal" was
in fact under the influence of a "natural" disturbance regime, AND human
influences at and before the time of European settlement.
Second, many people are advocating for the preservation of those few
remnant areas that are relatively in tact. Well, I'll buy that, but I also
agree that under a strictly preservationist regime, some very important
processes that maintain our "desirable" condition may be eliminated. So,
we must be careful when describing what we are actually preserving.
And lastly, I pose the question: what is wrong with taking areas that were
heavily (or not so heavily) impacted by past human activities, and managing
these lands in a way that promote vegetation development (succession, if
you prefer) to accelerate, for instance, the development of more old-growth
structures. (Not many of you would argue that we have less OG now than at
presettlement, and most feel more OG across a given landscape would be
desirable). In certain branches of forestry, for instance, we are using
what we know about past disturbance type, frequency, and intensity to
develop the most suitable management regime for specific forest types. In
the OG example, we won't be able to "restore" all the functions of the
system (rotting logs, pit-and-mound topography and resultant soil
development, etc.), but we would at least be creating (or restoring)
structures that are desirable (from a human, as well as a habitat
perspective). In places like the Rocky Mountains, many restoration efforts
are in place that combine traditional forest management with "natural"
processes, such as low-intensity underburning. These restoration efforts,
in combination with some preservation, may be a better way to create some
type of balance in structure and function of ecosystems across the
landscape. Yes, these areas will be in parts, and may not be reassembled
properly (whatever that means), but what is a better alternative?
LMN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:50 -0600
From: "J. M. Aguiar" <steelshard@TAMU.EDU>
Subject: ecological convergence
I have a rather naive question or two about convergence. There are
plenty of examples of plain morphological convergence, from ichthyosaurs
and dolphins to the marsupial "mole" Notoryctes. It comes in all shades
and gradations, from some fairly striking pairs (wolves and thylacines,
or Smilodon and Thylacosmilus) to less obvious, if not shaky, parallels.
So, first off...is there any standard by which convergence is
judged? Or is the entire concept subjective? Would morphometrics
applied to one species pair have any relevance to another?
And beyond that: how closely do the ecological relationships track
these designs? Can we assume that near-identical forms will play
near-identical roles in their respective ecosystems? Notoryctes make no
permanent burrows; the soil falls in behind them as they move, and this
would have quite a different effect on the oxygenation and biota of the
soil than tunnelling by true talpid moles.
It would be unproductive to dismiss all examples of convergence as
artifacts of our own minds, as some might be tempted to do; the
structures exist and are put into play around the world. But what are
the ecological ramifications of these various convergences, and how far
can they be carried?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:16:05 -0500
From: Jeanne or Axel Ringe <Onyxk9@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: [Fwd: Dana Meadows]
Dear colleagues and friends;
Very sad news - Dana Meadows died earlier today (Tuesday). She
was a=20
mentor, colleague and friend to many of us (she was my college advisor
at=20
Dartmouth) and a leader and guiding light for the environmental movement=20
(and certainly for me personally). She changed the way we all look at
and=20
think about the world. She was also a strong but gentle soul who spoke=20
from her heart in many times and places when others were reluctant or=20
afraid to speak the truth.
I miss her very much.
Peace...Fred Meyerson
P.S. Please see the fine words that Tony Cortese, Alan Atkisson, and
others=20
have written below.
*********************************
From: Tony Cortese, Second Nature
Dear friends and colleagues,
Some of you may already know this, but I wanted all of you to know that
the
world has lost one of the true giants in the quest for a just and
sustainable world, Dana Meadows.
The thought of the world without one of the brightest, most thoughtful,
insightful, caring souls who truly lived the values she espoused is
almost
unbearable. Dana was a visionary, the first of the great systems
thinkers
that have helped us all see the world in a holistic and interdependent
way,
a great teacher, an outstanding mentor to thousands of people (including
me)
and a gifted communicator. She used all of those and many other
wonderful
attributes to benefit all people and the rest of the natural world.=20
Dana
was always one step ahead of everyone in anticipating or seeing the next
challenge humans and the rest of the natural world would face and
offering
creative strategies to deal with them. She was the Cassandra (as Alan
Atkisson would say) that people believed. She never shied away from
calling
governments, industries, environmentalists, journalists and others to
task
for policies, behaviors or actions that were unjust, harmful,
ineffective or
just plain dumb. She never let people who read her weekly column, "The
Global Citizen", people she interacted with in other ways or her
students
get away with denial of things that have been wrong in the world. And
Dana
did it in a way that made you stop, think and be willing to look
yourself in
the face and see the truth or to take action to right a wrong.
Dana was always hopeful and inspiring and a strong believer in the
ability
of humans to change and reach a higher, more just and ethical way of
being.
But Dana's most endearing and admirable quality was to give of herself
and
her ideas with great humility and joy to everyone who would accept her
incredible gifts. I know that these few words are inadequate to express
all
that Dana has meant to me and to the world. In the days ahead others
who
are far more eloquent will be filling cyberspace and other media with
the
tributes Dana so richly deserves. She was too young, too vibrant and
too
important to the world to die this young. I am grateful for all the
years
that she was alive, for everything that she had to and did share and
that I
had the privilege of knowing her and learning from her. May we always
remember the things she has taught us and the example that she set for
us
all to emulate.
With gratitude, deep sadness and much love,
Tony
p.s. See note from Joan Davis and obituary below.
----------------------
Anthony Cortese, Sc.D.
President
Second Nature, Inc.
99 Chauncy Street, Sixth Floor
Boston, MA 02111 USA
Tel: 617-292-7771 ext. 120
Fax: 617-292-0150
Email: acortese@secondnature.org
http://www.secondnature.org
----------
From: Joan Davis <davis@EAWAG.CH>
Reply-To: Joan Davis <davis@EAWAG.CH>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:21:08 +0100
To: BALATON@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU
Subject: Re: Dana's obituary for international newspapers
Dear Friends,
Donella Meadows, Lead Author of The Limits to Growth, Has Died
Donella H. Meadows, 59, a pioneering environmental scientist and writer,
died Tuesday in New Hampshire after a brief illness. She was best known
to
the world as the lead author of the international bestselling book The
Limits to Growth, published in 1972. The book, which reported on a
study of
long-term global trends in population, economics, and the environment,
sold
millions of copies and was translated into 28 languages. She was also
the
lead author of the twenty-year follow-up study, Beyond the Limits
(1992),
with original co-authors Dennis Meadows and J=F8rgen Randers.
Professor Meadows, known as "Dana" to friends and colleagues, was a
leading
voice in what has become known as the "sustainability movement," an
international effort to reverse damaging trends in the environment,
economy,
and social systems. Her work is widely recognized as a formative
influence
on hundreds of other academic studies, government policy initiatives,
and
international agreements.
Dana Meadows was also a devoted teacher of environmental systems,
ethics,
and journalism to her students at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New
Hampshire, where she taught for 29 years. In addition to her many
original
contributions to systems theory and global trend analysis, she managed a
small farm and was a vibrant member of her local community. Genuinely
unconcerned with her international fame, she often referred to herself
simply as "a farmer and a writer."
Donella Meadows was born March 13, 1941 in Elgin, Illinois, and educated
in
science, earning a B.A. in chemistry from Carleton College in 1963 and a
Ph.D. in biophysics from Harvard University in 1968. As a research
fellow
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, she was a prot=E9g=E9 of Jay
Forrester, the inventor of system dynamics as well as the principle of
magnetic data storage for computers.
In 1972 she was on the MIT team that produced the global computer model
"World3" for the Club of Rome and provided the basis for The Limits to
Growth. The book made headlines around the world, and began a debate
about
the limits of the Earth's capacity to support human economic expansion,
a
debate that continues to this day. Her writing - appearing most often
in
the form of a weekly column called "The Global Citizen," nominated for
the
Pulitzer Prize in 1991 -- has been published regularly in the
international
press since that time.
In 1981, together with her former husband Dennis Meadows, Donella
Meadows
founded the International Network of Resource Information Centers
(INRIC),
also called the Balaton Group (after the lake in Hungary where the group
meets annually). The group built early and critical avenues of exchange
between scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain at the height of
the
Cold War.
As the Balaton Group's coordinator for eighteen years, she facilitated
what
grew to become an unusually effective global process of information
sharing
and collaboration among hundreds of leading academics, researchers, and
activists in the broader sustainability movement. Professor Meadows also
served on many national and international boards and scientific
committees,
and taught and lectured all over the world. She was recognized as a
1991
Pew Scholar and as a 1994 MacArthur Fellow for her work. In 1992 the
Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) presented her with an honorary
doctorate.
In 1997, Professor Meadows founded the Sustainability Institute, which
she
described as a "think-do-tank." The Institute combines cutting edge
research
in global systems with practical demonstrations of sustainable living,
including the development of an ecological village and organic farm in
Hartland Four Corners, Vermont.
Donella Meadows is survived by her mother, Phoebe Quist of Tahlequah
Oklahoma; her father, Don Hager of the Chicago area; a brother, Jason
Hager,
of Wisconsin; cousins and nephews; and a large community of colleagues
and
friends, both international and local, in the organizations that she
founded
and assisted.
____________________
Obituary prepared by members of the Balaton Group (INRIC)
For further information contact:
In USA: alan@atkisson.com
(In New England: bmiller@vermontel.net)
In Europe: davis@eawag.ch
In Asia:arevi@taru.org
************************************************************
Dr. Frederick A.B. Meyerson
Watson Institute for International Studies
Box 1831, 130 Hope Street
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
Tel: (401) 863-3067
Fax: (401) 863-2192
E-mail: Frederick_Meyerson@brown.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:38:04 -0500
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: Job: Earthwatch, Conservation Director
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
available February 2001
EARTHWATCH INSTITUTE
Conservation Director
Earthwatch Institute (EWI) is an international nonprofit organization
that supports scientific field research worldwide by offering members of
the public unique opportunities to work alongside leading field
scientists and researchers. The Institute's mission is to promote
sustainable conservation of our natural resources and cultural heritage
by creating partnerships between scientists, educators and the general
public. EWI is seeking a Director of Conservation.
The Earthwatch Institute (EWI) Director of Conservation will be
responsible for developing and managing the Conservation Program at
EWI. This includes strategic planning for the Program and management of
a $5M, 5-year grant from the Ford Motor Company for the EWI Conservation
Initiative. The deliverables of the grant include: strategic
development of 4 Conservation Research Centers (CRCs) in Latin America,
North America, Africa and Australasia/Pacific; development of an
Education Program, Professional and Corporate Development Fellowship
Program, and recruiting approximately 2,500 EWI volunteers to
participate on projects at CRCs over a five-year time period. The
Director will provide strategic direction for Program and project
development at the CRCs, and management of 4 Field Directors and a
Program Manager, based at EWI International Headquarters in Maynard,
Massachusetts. The development of CRCs will require identification of
appropriate host-country partner organizations, coordination of
multinational advisory groups and working with local Field Directors to
insure the CRC mission and focus are maintained. The Conservation
Director will also be required to represent EWI at selected conferences
and/or meetings, go on specific site-visits and facilitate new project
and Program development and fundraising activities in support of the
Conservation Initiative. The Conservation Director will report to the
President of EWI and work closely with the EWI affiliated offices and
all departments including the Education Department, The Center for Field
Research, Marketing and Communications, Development and Finance.
The Director will have outstanding qualifications and field experience
in international conservation science and sustainable development as
well as administrative and facilitative skills to effectively coordinate
the diverse interests and abilities of the CRC partners and stakeholders
associated with the Conservation Initiative. A Ph.D. or equivalent
degree or experience is required, as are demonstrated abilities to
obtain funding, to manage interdisciplinary projects, and to effectively
communicate and study complex conservation issues. Also required are
leadership abilities and entrepreneurial spirit necessary to establish
and maintain the Conservation Initiative as an internationally,
well-respected Program.
Send resumes to: Tara Carey, Earthwatch Institute, PO Box 75, Maynard,
MA 01754 or, preferably, email to: tcarey@earthwatch.org.
--
M. Blue Magruder
Director of Public Affairs
Earthwatch Institute
3 Clock Tower Place
Maynard, MA 01754-0075
Phone: 800-776-0188 or 978-461-0081 ext 136
Fax: 978-461-2332
http://www.earthwatch.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:30:38 EST
From: "{E. Guy Stephens}" <Darwinthedog@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: aquarium UV sterilizers???
Wes,
I have used sterilizers from the following companies: Rainbow Lifeguard,
Hawaiian Marine and Aquanetics. All seemed to work equally well, although
have a slight preference for the Rainbow Lifeguard unit. I would probably
suggest a 25-40 watt unit based on the information you provided. Such a un
t
would run you about $100-200.
Guy
E. Guy Stephens
Fisheries Biologist
District of Columbia Government
Fisheries and Wildlife Division
gstephens@dchealth.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:21:46 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
Honorable Forum:
As I interpret the issue to be bounded, I do not disagree with Heidi. I am
in closest concordance with the statements and inferences that "we don't
know." At least I don't--for "sure."
Fire does have effects on ecosystems, undisturbed and disturbed (as my
blackened shoes can testify), as do shoes, tire-tracks, hoofprints, paws,
aliens, ad infinitum. All of these things can be seen as influence which
variously cause damage and provide heterogeneity, thus diversity. (I have a
nice photo somewhere of a riot of "refugee" flowers growing in the habitat
damage caused by tire ruts--more common species were displaced to provide a
niche for a less-common species. No, I am not suggesting that this
validates off-road mania, only that objectivity demands that such
influences not be ignored.) I see both "positive" and "negative" effects,
but Heidi is quite perceptive, I submit, that the consequences may not have
sufficiently played out over time. Has "the jury" concluded that MORE
diversity always is "better," as in the restoration project (not fully)
cited? Are the "additional" organisms truly those species which were
previously present (indigenous to the site) or added from other sites to
"increase diversity?"
My admittedly provincial and casual observations of coastal sage scrub here
along the Southern California coast leave me with the impression that to a
greater or lesser degree (depending largely, it appears, on soils)
"grassland" ascension to "dominance" is fire-dependent, but "re-invasion"
by shrubs occurs as part of an apparent cycle or fluctuation in the
composition and dominance relations of the ecosystem subsystem. I often
have wondered if there might be a similar mechanism or dynamic occurring in
Great Plains and other prairie and savanna ecosystems. I have not seen the
mid-continent ecosystems in action (I should live so long?), but if I
envision it correctly (I undoubtedly do not) colonization and/or
recolonization by woody species is a common occurrence there too. Is this
"unnatural?"
I ask again: It the point of relevance with respect to understanding
changes in ecosystems more related to hard numbers or general trends?
Best,
WT
At 08:39 PM 02/20/2001 -0800, Heidi Hillhouse wrote:
>I wish I had information on the success rates of
>restoration vs. preservation of ecosystems, but I
>don't. Maybe someone else on the list...?
>
>I can and have documented the effects of fire on some
>ecosystems. I wasn't stating that frequent fires can
>be harmeful, although that is certainly true. More, I
>was stating that stopping wildfires in habitat
>preserves can negatively impact ecosystems. Prairie
>systems in particular are well documented to benefit
>from an occasional burning, although details on what
>the proper interval for maximum diversity is are still
>under discussion. Another example- in Yellowstone
>forest, there are tree species specialized in
>reproduction after a fire- the seeds stay confined in
>cones or other structures and unable to germinate
>until the high temperatures associated with fire cause
>them to be released (sorry, don't have the exact tree
>species handy).
>
>Prairie systems are the ones I'm personally most
>familiar with, so my examples tend to be in those
>terms. I know that even the oldest restoration
>project that I'm aware of (over 70 years old now) has
>a significantly diffrent microbial community, bird
>community, and plant diversity and distribution than a
>protected (read- preserved) area close to it. Even
>after all we have learned, we can't come close to
>recreating the interactions an undisturbed area.
>Granted, it's possible that we are still examining too
>short of a time scale, but this is the best
>information available to date.
>
>I guess in summary, I would say that I favor neither
>restoration or preservation. They both have severe
>limitations. Whenever possible, I think that
>salvaging any existing community interactions in
>degraded ecosystems is preferable to attempting to
>recreate it from the bottom up. From that point of
>veiw, preservation provides a better starting point,
>even in highly degraded areas. Of course, it would be
>nice if neither of these practices were necessary, but
>the reality demands a more pragmatic approach.
>
>Heidi
>
>--- Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:51:04 -0800
From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: job ad: seasonal bird field work
Job Announcement:
Bird Point-Count Surveys
Two bird point-count surveyors are needed
for a study of habitat use by the breeding
birds of a complex riparian ecosystem in
southern Nevada. This is a full-time (40
hours per week), short-term (2 months)
position, beginning 1 May 2001. The work
is a collaborative project involving the
University of Nevada at Reno, the Great
Basin Bird Observatory, and the Clark
County Desert Conservation Plan. Salary
is $450 per week, plus mileage reimburse-
ment.
All work will be conducted along the Muddy
River of northern Clark County, Nevada.
This is an area of exceptional breeding
bird diversity, and is home to species
such as Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Vermilion
Flycatcher, Bell's Vireo, Blue Grosbeak,
and Hooded Oriole. The study area is
easy to access and is located about one
hour from Las Vegas.
All candidates should have the following
qualifications:
1. Excellent birding skills, including an
ability to recognize southwestern desert
birdsongs.
2. Their own car or truck (4WD not necessary),
expenses for which shall be reimbursed.
3. An ability to troubleshoot and improvise,
and to get along with the diverse human
inhabitants of a rapidly urbanizing and
politically complex region.
The first of the three qualifications is by
far the most important. We are happy to
consider joint applications from two people
interested working together on this project.
If you are interested in this job, please
submit the following materials:
1. A one-page letter describing your interests
and expertise as they relate to this position,
plus a phone number and e-mail address where
you can be reached.
2. A one-page resume or curriculum vitae.
3. Names, titles, and phone numbers for two
references.
Send your application packet, as three separate
pages, to:
Ted Floyd
Great Basin Bird Observatory
One East First Street, Suite 500
Reno, Nevada 89501
All materials must be received by 1 April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:31:28 -0500
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: Free copies of Nature's latest issue, about the human genome
Great news! Due to massive demand, Nature has arranged for a limited
run of the genome issue to be distributed FREE to select members of
the scientific community.
Visit http://www.nature.com/genome/ to order your FREE copy, and you'll
find:
* 4 Research Articles (including the actual map and sequence of the
human genome by Lander et al.)
* 7 Letters
* 11 Studies on the impact on biological and medical disciplines
* 7 News & Views articles which provide the context for understanding
the human genome
* A CD-ROM - developed by the US National Human Genome Research
Institute. Contains animations, diagrams and timelines.
* Poster - vibrant and informative wall poster that explores the
geography of the genome.
These copies are on a first come, first served basis. Don't miss out
on this seminal issue - supplies are limited, so hurry. You can even
take advantage of a limited-time 15% discount on a personal subscription
to Nature. Why not pass this e-mail on to colleagues who'd benefit
from a copy?
Visit the Nature Genome Gateway at http://www.nature.com/genomics for
free access to these landmark papers, including comment and analysis.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:06:48 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: ECOLOG-L: Clarity of scientific terminology (Re: Habitat selection,
schmelection)
Honorable Forum:
First, I hope that this "thread" will continue until the questions
submitted are clearly resolved and our (or at least my) ignorance is
clearly delineated. It seems to me that this "thread" is a highly
important one, and that to abandon it unresolved and undelineated would be,
shall we say, "un-courageous?
Please help me! I still have trouble with "prefer" and "select" and the
crucial distinctions between the two terms. Do not organisms occupy all
kinds of habitats (as we decide to define them), but thrive best where
habitat conditions are better than "fringe" conditions? If this is true,
what are the "selection" and "preference" mechanisms? It seems to me that
"selection" is a genetic/evolution term, quite valid, useful, and highly
relevant to this discussion in this context. I suppose it's ok for both
terms to be used and distinguished by context, but where confusion can
occur, clarity would appear to be better option.
For example: When an organism selects a habitat that it prefers, that
organism's tolerance limits are tested, stressed. This causes a
sorting-out of the most adaptive genetic characters, resulting in the
development of ecotypes along a habitat gradient. Mutations which confer
survival advantages to the organism are selected for, and the altered form
of the stressed organism can now select the new habitat it prefers. (This
is a bit tongue-in-cheek, I admit, but does it serve to advance or retard
the discussion? What are its flaws?)
Some organisms (e.g. methanotropic bacteria?) have rather limited habitat
requirements and thus occupy limited habitats. They are, however,
ubiquitous, as are their habitat conditions. Is this a matter of "scale,"
or would that start a whole new debate about terminology and the need for
clarity in communication? Others (e.g. coast redwoods) are much more
limited in their distribution? Why is this? Why have the organisms with
the apparently tight habitat requirements lasted so much longer? Is it, as
my wife says, that "death was invented by sex?" But please don't digress
from the original thread--clarity of scientific terminology--start a new
one if you wish to discuss these questions. I have tried to be more clear,
ironically, and less flip in re-naming the threat subject line. Forgive me.
Respectfully submitted,
WT
At 09:10 PM 02/20/2001 -0800, Timothy Brook Smith wrote:
> > Honorable Forum:
> >
> > Where confusion persists, and/or communication is an exercise in s
mantics,
> > could the terminology be weak?
>
>It would appear that either way, if they "prefer"
> > or "select" sub-optimal conditions that they will pay a "price" ra
her than
> > reap a "profit." And they do, yes? And the result is thus define
and the
> > habitat thus determined, right? Wrong?
> >
> > What are the relevant aspects of this issue and how do they fit to
ether?
>
>
>This issue is important for some of the same reasons the "Humpty Dumpty"
>thread
>has managed to persist for several days. Communities of organisms are c
mplex
>aggregations of populations and individuals that interact differently
>depending
>on what other organisms and habitats are present. The parts are complex
and
>change with context. Simply recording the habitats or diet an organism s
lects
>in one context doesn't provide certain information about the habitats it
will
>select elsewhere, or the conditions that are "optimal" for that species
r
>population. Populations (or metapopulations) of organisms frequently
>persist in
>
>sub-optimal conditions...if you want to understand the mechanisms beneat
the
>patterns, you need to know the difference between what they prefer and
>what they
>
>select.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:29:21 -0600
From: "Mladenoff, David J." <djmladen@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU>
Subject: PhD RA or Postdoc
--=====================_55564589==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
PhD Assistantship or Postdoc
Forest Landscape Ecology
I have an opening for a PhD grad assistant or postdoc in the area of
landscape ecology, integrating ecosystems and vegetation ecology. The
project would be an extension of our work on the NW Wisconsin Pine Barrens
(see lab web site below for details), assessing the dynamics and drivers of
landscape change. The Pine Barrens is a sandy outwash plain formerly
dominated by pine forest, savanna, and open 'barrens' or northern prairie.
Fire and jack pine budworm disturbances predominate.
Work would involve establishing a large network of plots across the Barrens
landscape, in coordination with companion studies of pollen and charcoal in
lake sediments, ecosystem processes (decomposition and C and N dynamics),
and modeling. The emphasis is on past landscape states, lagacies, and
disturbances. The work would involve developing research questions and
collecting vegetation (composition, diversity, exotics), productivity, and
possibly soil N and C data, in a matrix landscape of past fire, forest
harvesting, agriculture, and re-forestation. The research may include both
field work and modeling.
Desired qualifications are an MS degree, with strong training in landscape
and ecosystems ecology, good quantitative skills, and field
experience. The position is open immediately (February 2001), and would
ideally be filled by spring. A fall start is possible. The Forest Landscape
Ecology Lab is a very interactive and collaborative environment, and
similar-minded candidates are sought.
A graduate research assistantship is currently around $16000 annually, and
includes health benefits, and full tuition remission. Funding is in hand
for 3-4 years.
Applicants should visit the lab web site http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu
and send via email djmladen@facstaff.wisc.edu the following: Statement of
experience and interests, unofficial transcript, resume, coordinates for
three references, and GREs if available.
I will also be attending the US Landscape Ecology meeting in April in
Arizona, and the SAF/ESA Forest Ecology Conference in Duluth in June.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----------------------
David J.
Mladenoff Editor-in-Chief, Landscape Ecolog
Associate
Professor www.wkap.nl/journals/landscape
Forest Landscape Ecology Lab http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu
djmladen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Department of Forest Ecology & Mgmt., University of Wisconsin-Madison
1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 USA
http://forest.wisc.edu/
--=====================_55564589==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<div align="center">
PhD Assistantship or Postdoc<br>
Forest Landscape Ecology<br>
<br>
</div>
I have an opening for a PhD grad assistant or postdoc in the area of
landscape ecology, integrating ecosystems and vegetation ecology.
The project would be an extension of our work on the NW Wisconsin Pine
Barrens (see lab web site below for details), assessing the dynamics and
drivers of landscape change. The Pine Barrens is a sandy outwash
plain formerly dominated by pine forest, savanna, and open 'barrens' or
northern prairie. Fire and jack pine budworm disturbances
predominate. <br>
<br>
Work would involve establishing a large network of plots across the
Barrens landscape, in coordination with companion studies of pollen and
charcoal in lake sediments, ecosystem processes (decomposition and C and
N dynamics), and modeling. The emphasis is on past landscape states,
lagacies, and disturbances. The work would involve developing research
questions and collecting vegetation (composition, diversity, exotics),
productivity, and possibly soil N and C data, in a matrix landscape of
past fire, forest harvesting, agriculture, and re-forestation. The
research may include both field work and modeling. <br>
<br>
Desired qualifications are an MS degree, with strong training in
landscape and ecosystems ecology, good quantitative skills, and field
experience. The position is open immediately (February 2001), and
would ideally be filled by spring. A fall start is possible. The Forest
Landscape Ecology Lab is a very interactive and collaborative
environment, and similar-minded candidates are sought.<br>
<br>
A graduate research assistantship is currently around $16000 annually,
and includes health benefits, and full tuition remission. Funding
is in hand for 3-4 years.<br>
<br>
Applicants should visit the lab web site
<a href="http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu/" eudora="autourl"><font
color="#0000FF"><u>http://landscape.forest.wisc.</a><a
href="http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu/" eudora="autourl">edu</a><
/u></font>
and send via email <font
color="#0000FF"><u>djmladen@facstaff.wisc.edu</u></font>
the following:
Statement of experience and interests, unofficial transcript, resume,
coordinates for three references, and GREs if available.<br>
<br>
I will also be attending the US Landscape Ecology meeting in April in Arizon
,
and the SAF/ESA Forest Ecology Conference in Duluth in June.<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----------------------<br>
David J.
Mladenoff
nbs
p; &
bsp
; Editor-in-Chief, <i>
Landscape
Ecology<br>
</i>Associate
Professor
nbs
p; &
bsp
; <a href="http://www.wkap.nl/journals/lan
scape"
eudora="autourl">www.wkap.nl/journals/landscape</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Forest Landscape Ecology Lab <a href="http://landscape.forest.wisc.
du/"
eudora="autourl">http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu</a><br>
djmladen@facstaff.wisc.edu<br>
Department of Forest Ecology & Mgmt., University of Wisconsin-Madison<
br>
1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 USA <br>
<a href="http://forest.wisc.edu/" eudora="autourl">http://forest.wisc.
du/</a>
</html>
--=====================_55564589==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:38:46 -0700
From: Interhemispheric Resource Center <ircalb@SWCP.COM>
Subject: Climate Change Commentary
-----------------------------------------------------------
FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS
http://fpif.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colleagues,
Below is a link to a new commentary by Ross Gelbspan, author
of the "Heat is On."
For a complete listing of policy briefs, reports and commentaries on
U.S. international environmental policy, visit:
http://fpif.org/indices/topics/environment.htm
best regards,
Tim
U.S. Scuttles Latest Chance to Avert Global Warming Catastrophe
By Ross Gelbspan
http://fpif.org/commentary/0102warming.html
Given the U.S. performance at the latest round of global warming
negotiations at the Hague, it's hard to see how George W. Bush could do any
worse than the Clinton-Gore administration. The U.S. has isolated itself
not only from its European allies, but also from developing countries and
even a growing number of corporations. America has
given new meaning to the term "outlaw nation."
It's not as though the danger signs were hidden from U.S. negotiators.
Within the past year, drought-driven wildfires consumed more than six
million acres in the West. The nine-foot-deep ice pack at the North Pole
melted into a mile-wide lake. And more than 2,000 scientists reported to
the UN that warming later in this century exceed their previous estimates
of 6=BA F and will more likely approach a catastrophic 11=BA F.
-----------------------------------------------------------
FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS
http://fpif.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:03:01 -0600
From: Jim Decoster <Jim_DeCoster@NPS.GOV>
Subject: Fire Ecologist Positions
There are 8 openings for fire ecologists (GS-7 -GS-11) in the National Park
Service in the following parks:
Big Bend National Park
Big Thicket National Park and Preserve
Crater Lake National Park
Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Santa Monica Mountains National Rec Area
Voyageurs National Park
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield
Wind Cave National Park
The positions are "ecoregional" in nature, covering a number of parks.
The positions are open to federal employees and people outside the
government.
One can apply to a number of the positions with one application.
Details and application information can be obtained at the following web
sites.
US Government employees: http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/IR6242.HTM
Outside the government: http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/IR6233.HTM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:08:03 -0500
From: Howard S Neufeld <neufeldhs@APPSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Botanical Term
Dear All,
We are working with an evergreen, understory herb called Galax urceolata
(formerly G. aphylla). It is clonal. Each plant is composed of several
leaves attached to a short underground rhizome. Ramets are connected by
long underground runners that grow out of the rhizome.
What should we call the runners? Normally, runners refer to aboveground
connections. Thanks for your help.
Howie Neufeld
------------------------------------------
Howard S. Neufeld, Professor
572 Rivers St.
P.O. Box 32027
Dept. of Biology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608-2027
------------------------------------------
Tel. 828-262-2683
FAX 828-262-2127
------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:46:14 -0800
From: Stan Rowe <stanrowe@NETIDEA.COM>
Subject: Habitats, species, and such
--=====================_4156349==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Say Wayne, isn't the problem that the complexity of ecosystems (not
communities plus environment) exceeds the complexity of the circuitry of
our brains? So in good scientific reductive fashion we jump on the things
we think we can handle, the simple parts, the individual organisms
generalized as "species." We think that we can preserve or restore species
if we can just get the hang of it and therefore set our minds to that task,
focusing on particular plants and animals to which we attribute "habitat
preferences" and the ability to "select habitats." Of course these are
over-simplifications, as "habitat" is one of the wooly words. Strict
"preservation" alone maintains the structure and function of semi-natural
and natural ecosystems such as Old Growth Forests on Fire-Proof
Well-Watered Landforms With Cool Microclimates and Suitable Soils.
"Restoration" will always be a relative term, meaning to the sensitive:
"Gee we're sorry we were so stoopid, and now we'd like to make amends, but
we don't really know how, so we're doing the best we can." To which the
Earth might well respond with two words: Lay Off !
Stan
--=====================_4156349==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
Say Wayne, isn't the problem that the complexity of ecosystems
(<b>not</b> communities plus environment) exceeds the complexity
of the
circuitry of our brains? So in good scientific reductive fashion we jump
on the things we think we can handle, the simple parts, the individual
organisms generalized as "species." We think that we can
preserve or restore species if we can just get the hang of it and
therefore set our minds to that task, focusing on particular plants and
animals to which we attribute "habitat preferences" and the
ability to "select habitats." Of course these are
over-simplifications, as "habitat" is one of the wooly words.
Strict "preservation" alone maintains the structure and
function of semi-natural and natural ecosystems such as Old Growth
Forests on Fire-Proof Well-Watered Landforms With Cool Microclimates and
Suitable Soils. "Restoration" will always be a relative term,
meaning to the sensitive: "Gee we're sorry we were so stoopid, and
now we'd like to make amends, but we don't really know how, so we're
doing the best we can." To which the Earth might well respond with
two words: <b>Lay Off !<br>
</b><x-tab> </
-tab>Stan<br>
</html>
--=====================_4156349==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:35:23 -0700
From: Kurt Reinhart <Reinhart@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject: seedbank sampling tips
Greetings,
I plan on doing a manipulative experiment using the seedbank from native
riparian areas and areas invaded with Norway maple in Montana. Do any
of you have any suggestions regarding sampling of the seedbank and
techniques for extracting seeds? I've seen people use soil probes to
collect samples that are ca. 2 cm in width and some user defined depth.
I am more interested in sampling just the upper 2-5cm of soil and as
large a width as possible (rocky soil will limit diameter of sample).
I've thought of using aluminum tins to punch into the soil. The soil is
extremely rocky in areas (much better than most of MT) and will likely
beat up probes, tins, etc. Any firsthand tips or recommended reading
will be greatly appreciated.
Kurt
--
Kurt Reinhart
University of Montana
Division of Biological Sciences
Missoula, MT 59812
Office: (406) 243-5935
Fax: (509) 756-8036
E-mail: Reinhart@selway.umt.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:17:04 -0600
From: Thomas Rosburg <thomas.rosburg@DRAKE.EDU>
Subject: tree ring stain solution
I have a student counting tree rings of tree stem sections. On some of the
dogwood, the rings are difficult to see. I have a bottle of phloroglucinol
powder and thought we would mix a staining solution and try that. My
instructions for making the mix have been misplaced. I remember the
solution requires 95% ethyl alcohol and 50% hydrochloric acid??
Can anyone share with me the instructions for preparing the solution and any
other special staining techniques or advice?
Thanks!!
Thomas Rosburg
Department of Biology
Drake University
515-271-2920
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:45:34 -0800
From: Beth Michaels <bamichaels@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: habitat selection
Greetings list folk.
I too find this discussion confusing. In my admitted
naivete, I take "prefer" to mean "choose an ideal ___
from an infinite array of options", and "select" to
mean "choose one______ from a limited array of
possibly less desirable options." Will anyone be so
kind as to enlighten me?
Beth
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:51:12 -0800
From: Ksenia Barton <kbarton@INTERGATE.CA>
Subject: request for info on Antennaria flagellaris
ECOLOG readers:
I am writing to request information about the plant species Antennaria
flagellaris (stoloniferous pussytoes). In Canada, this plant is known from o
ly
3 locations (within a 3 km stretch) in the eastern Cascade Mountains. Becaus
little is known about the habitat and management of this plant in Canada, I
m
hoping that American botanists/ecologists can give me some insight on this p
ant
and/or provide some references. Here are some questions that I have:
In what type of plant community have you seen Antennaria flagellaris growing
What plant species commonly co-occur with Antennaria flagellaris?
Does Antennaria flagellaris commonly grow on a certain terrain feature,
microsite, or soil type?
At what time of year does Antennaria flagellaris flower and set seed?
Have you ever observed a population of Antennaria flagellaris to have declin
d
due to anthropogenic impacts (including cattle grazing, horseback riding,
off-road vehicle use, human trampling, noxious weed control programs, change
in
fire ecology, timber harvesting programs, agricultural use)?
If you have seen Antennaria flagellaris growing in a cattle grazed area, how
would you describe the range condition and utilization?
Please respond to me directly - I will post a summary of replies. Please als
include the geographic area where you have observed this plant in your reply
Thanks in advance, Ksenia Barton
=========================
Ksenia Barton, MSc, RPBio
-------------------------
kbarton@intergate.ca
=========================
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 20 Feb 2001 to 21 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