Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 16 Sep 2003 to 17 Sep 2003 (#2003-233)
There are 6 messages totalling 699 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fwd: Re: Freshman reading in science
2. Results: Suggestions on Ecology txts for streams/rivers
3. New England groundfish letter
4. digitising plant architecture
5. M.S. assistantship available
6. postdoctoral positions
[ Part 2: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:12:34 -0700
From: Stan Rowe <stanrowe@NETIDEA.COM>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Freshman reading in science
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:05:01 -0700
>To: "David S. White" <david.white@murraystate.edu>
>From: Stan Rowe <stanrowe@netidea.com>
>Subject: Re: Freshman reading in science
>
>Say David,
>
>I'm humiliated at having dashed off that bit of immodesty without readin
>it twice. Of course it's not West Jackson, it's Wes Jackson of the Salin
,
>Kansas, "Natural Systems Agriculture" Land Institute. Your students woul
>find his publications well worth reading as he tries to develop a
>perennial-crop agriculture using the Tall Grass Prairie as his model.
>
>Cheers, Stan
>
>At 07:07 AM 9/17/03, you wrote:
>>Stan,
>>Thanks for your modest proposal.
>>David
>>
>>
>>At 09:14 AM 9/16/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Say, how about Stan Rowe's "Home Place, Essays on Ecology," Sec
nd
>>>Edition, with a foreword by West Jackson?
>>>
>>>"Modesty is a highly over-rated virtue." John Kenneth Galbrait
>>>
>>>(Modestly) Stan Rowe
>>
>>David S. White
>>Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
>>Director, Hancock Biological Station
>>Coordinator, Center for Reservoir Research
>>
>>561 Emma Drive
>>Murray, KY 42071
>>
>>Phone 270-474-2272
>>FAX 270-474-0120
[ Part 3: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:56:48 -0400
From: Chuck Lane <crlane@UFL.EDU>
Subject: Results: Suggestions on Ecology txts for streams/rivers
Thanks to all who replied to my email seeking stream/river ecology text
books that cross paradigms. Several suggestions were made (in no
particular order):
1. Allan, J.D.: Stream Ecology (Kluwer, 1995)
2. Giller, P.S. and B. Malmqvist: The Biology of Streams and Rivers
(Oxford, 1999)
3. Cushing, C.E. and J.D. Allan: Streams: Their Ecology and Life (Academic
Press, 2001)
Regards,
Chuck Lane
University of Florida
[ Part 4: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:57:21 -0400
From: Les Kaufman and Jim Wilson <KaufmanWilson@NAMANET.ORG>
Subject: New England groundfish letter
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Dear Colleagues,
We have written a "scientists letter" to the Executive
Director of the New England Fisheries Management Council and
we are seeking your endorsement. The letter is being sent so
that it coincides with public hearings for what is
called 'Amendment 13'. Amendment 13 is a court ordered
process that requires the Council to drastically alter its
management practices so that they generate the sustainable
conservation results required under the Sustainable Fisheries
Act.
The letter urges the Council to consider the adoption of
finer scale management in both the biological and
social/management dimensions. As we explain in the letter,
the purpose of finer scale management is to create a
framework in which the Council can begin to address basic
questions of ecological structure and human stewardship. At
the same time the intent of finer scale management is to move
away from the current system in which fishing vessels are
free to move among ecologically distinct regions- such as
inshore and shelf-edge. This system cannot match fishing
effort to the regenerative capabilities of individual
substocks and it maintains open access incentives for
individual fishermen even though there are limits on total
fishing effort. The result has been the sequential
impoverishment of local substocks and their corresponding
fishing communities.
The reason we are asking for your endorsement is because
finer scale management, sometimes called area management in
the New England context, represents a significant shift in
scientific perspective. For over 25 years the Council has
managed using a traditional single species, broad-scale
population dynamics approach. Area management, on the other
hand, is predicated on the idea that behavioral and
ecological adaptations create fine scale diversity that is
important for the health of the system, and for that reason
management has to be carried out at both finer and broader
scales. As you are well aware, these differing views of
appropriate scale and system dynamics lead to very different
conclusions about how to manage ocean resources.
Additionally, on the social side of the equation, finer scale
management opens up the possibilities for institutions with
strong stewardship incentives.
Consequently, your endorsement of the attached letter is
really an endorsement of a process that will begin the
development of finer scale management structures to
complement the current broad-scale approach of the Council.
This is an important conservation issue. There are strong
fishing industry, administrative, and even scientific
interests that are deeply vested in the current broad-scale
approach. They will oppose movement towards finer (really
multiple) scale management. The principal purpose of the
attached letter is to show that in the independent science
and social science communities there is significant support
for movement towards finer-scale management.
Please read the letter below. If you find you can endorse
it, please do and reply to this message with your endorsement
(and a note if you like) to us at KaufmanWilson@namanet.org.
The quicker you can do this the better. Amendment 13 public
hearings will occur between Sept. 9 and Sept. 30. If you
have colleagues whom you believe would like to lend their
support, please pass on the letter, or include their names in
your reply and we will contact them.
Thank you for your consideration of this important
conservation and social issue.
Les Kaufman, Boston University
Jim Wilson, University of Maine
I wish to add my name to the list of people who endorse the
attached letter.
Signed .
**************************************************
Les Kaufman
Professor of Biology
Boston University Marine Program
617.353.5560
and
James A. Wilson
Professor of Marine Sciences and
Resource Economics
University of Maine
207.581.4368
**************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
September 16, 2003
Paul Howard, Executive Director
New England Fisheries Management Council
50 Water Street, Mill 2
Newburyport, MA 01950
CC: Bill Hogarth, Director NOAA Fisheries
Pat Kurkul, NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Regional Administrator
Re: Comments on Groundfish Amendment 13
Dear Paul,
We are writing to urge the New England Fishery Management Council to adopt a
finer-scale, area management approach to the New England groundfishery. The
isdom of this suggestion derives from knowledge of the natural history of ou
fishes, from ecological theory, from socio-economics, and from recent scien
ific evidence about the importance of localized behavior, site attachment, a
d population structure in groundfishes. These various sources of insight all
indicate that our current broad-scale approach, in which the Gulf of Maine i
assumed to constitute a single, homogeneous stock for every species, makes
t difficult, perhaps impossible, for the Council to successfully implement f
ndamental requirements of resource management. In particular, it makes it ex
remely difficult to match fishing effort and patterns in the production and
ggregation of fishes; it has hobbled the Council's attempts to address habit
t issues and other aspects of ecological structure; and it has discouraged a
sense of stewardship among fishermen.
We realize that a system of governance for area management cannot be impleme
ted full-blown at the outset. We also understand that area management by its
lf will not instantly solve all of the problems of the New England groundfis
ery. But if implemented with sufficient care, area management will bring us
uch closer to matching our fishing effort with the ocean's potential to sust
in it. Area management makes it possible to address local habitat features a
d the substocks of fish metapopulations that have accommodated behaviorally,
and may have adapted genetically, to take advantage of these localized habit
t features. Area management creates the circumstances under which adaptive m
nagement can really work. Most of all, it is consistent with the kind of dec
ntralized management that is essential for self-interested stewardship among
fishermen-one of the strongest steps we can take towards sustainable fisheri
s.
The problem of matching the spatial distribution of fishing effort to the re
enerative capacity of the stocks is fundamental to fisheries management. Wha
this means as a practical matter, however, is very dependent on our scienti
ic perception of the appropriate spatial scale or scales. If it is assumed,
s is the case currently, that the New England groundfishery is comprised of
ne or two homogeneous stocks of each species that mix freely over large geog
aphical ranges and exhibit no important local biology, then it makes sense t
define a single Total Allowable Catch (TAC) or total days-at-sea for each s
ock (or stock complex) at that scale. But, if it turns out that the groundfi
hery is characterized by spatially localized and locally distinct substocks,
our current approach to effort management is certain to produce de facto and
continuing open access. That is, each stock will be subject to much more fis
ing effort than any of these localized stocks or population concentrations c
n sustain.
The reason for this is very straightforward. Knowledgeable fishermen go wher
the fish are. If they can move freely from stock to stock (or between multi
pecies stock complexes) the amount of fishing effort that can be applied to
ach local stock is potentially the total amount of effort allocated to the e
tire fishery. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, only marginal shifts in
ffort are likely to be required to knock down any growing local stock. Conse
uently, the current draconian reductions in fishing effort are likely to yie
d little long-term benefit so long as the circumstances of de facto open acc
ss dominate the fishery. By moving to area management and restricting the mo
ility of vessels, the Council can take a reasonable first step towards meeti
g the fundamental requirement of matching fishing activity with the regenera
ive capacity of the ecosystem.
Area management also would allow us to begin to tailor fisheries management
o the ecological details of particular areas. Fish from different parts of a
species' range are not all the same. They exhibit a spectrum of locally dist
nct attributes that range from learned behaviors to genetic adaptations; thi
helps them to track resources in a spatially heterogeneous environment. Man
gement has paid insufficient attention to this extremely important aspect of
groundfish biology and our relatively centralized administrative apparatus h
s made effective attention to this kind of ecological detail almost impossib
e. An area management approach will make it practical to consider local det
il while also coordinating at a regional scale. This is a lesson that every
arge corporation in the world has learned: efficiency and productivity are e
hanced when locally relevant decisions are delegated to responsible and know
edgeable local managers.
Area management also begins to point us down the road towards the developmen
of stewardship incentives among resource users. This is how responsibility
s built at the local level. Under the current system of de facto open acces
, stewardship is irrational for the individual. Restraint exercised by any i
dividual fisherman does not pay off if the resource is only to be exploited
y other fishermen. Moving away from these kinds of mutually destructive ince
tives is also a fundamental requirement of good resource management. Area ma
agement makes the development of stewardship much more practical. It sets up
the circumstances for multilevel governance and the meaningful participation
of the industry.
For example, an important conservation effect that can be expected with area
management comes from the user interests that will develop to address migrat
ry and overlapping stocks. Usually migration is seen as a large barrier to a
ea management. This can prove to be almost exactly wrong. The governance gro
p or committee in each unit will have a strong incentive to make sure that n
ighboring areas apply appropriate conservation rules to these stocks. If the
governance rules allow areas to negotiate with each other, a strong mutually
beneficial conservation interest is enabled-one that is not currently presen
in the management system.
In the last two decades an extensive body of knowledge developed from the ex
erience in business, government and resource management has grown up around
orkable ways to decentralize resource management (e.g, Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom,
et al. 2002). Area management provides a framework for the implementation of
that knowledge in the New England fisheries.
Whether the move to area management is appropriate or not depends upon the s
atial attributes of the stocks. Ecological theory argues for the importance
f local adaptations (Levin, 1998). In New England the hard evidence consiste
t with this theory has been cropping up for some time, but has only recently
begun to filter into the literature. Perkins et al. (1997) describe the dist
nct biological features of a Sheepscot Bay substock.
Ted Ames has a paper in press that documents, in a broader sense, the existe
ce of local structure in the behavior of cod with respect to habitat feature
(Ames, in press). Ted shows that inshore cod aggregate, hang out, and move
about in ways that can make them vulnerable to pulse fishing by highly mobil
vessels. Ted's data are based on historical patterns, but early returns fro
the Northeast Consortium-funded cod-tagging program may confirm the continu
d existence of localized stock structure in the Gulf of Maine.
The results of research conducted off-shore using acoustic telemetry show su
prisingly limited movements of individual tagged cod in the Stellwagen Bank
egion (Lindholm and Auster, 2003). This research is part of an on-going effo
t to quantify the habitat-mediated movement behavior of cod and other specie
. Results also suggest that some tagged cod show strong site attachment to i
dividual piled boulder reefs, often remaining in the vicinity of the reef fo
more than 13 months, while other cod show considerable movement among diffe
ent boulder reefs (Lindholm et al., in prep). These results provide addition
l support for the existence of distinct sub-populations within the Gulf of M
ine. There is no reason to think that this behavior is unusual. Indeed, it i
corroborated by studies conducted elsewhere in the range of Atlantic cod an
other groundfishes (Wroblewski et al., 1996, Thorrold et al., 2001). There
re records of highly localized concentrations of groundfish being depleted i
just a few years (Preble and Safina, 2002), so we know that this can and do
s happen
Are the substocks that are restricted behaviorally to a particular area of s
a bottom also genetically distinct, and if so, are they specially adapted to
their peculiar conditions? There is some evidence to suggest that they are
genetically distinct (Bentzen et al., 1996, Ruzzante et al., 1996a, 1996b).
he genetics do not give us all the information we need, however, because (a)
a lot of this work has yet to be done, and because (b) the methods currently
used to define genetic stock structure are not the best for this purpose. (T
ey tend to focus on "neutral" genes or genes that are specifically thought n
t to be related to local adaptation). Whether the basis of local differences
are learned, inherited, or both, these biological differences do exist and a
e related to localized habitat features.
Most people do not perceive the currents, rockpiles, nurseries, undersea hig
ways, and breeding aggregations of our groundfishes. Though submarine habita
s may be hidden from view by the sea's leaden surface, their effects in rest
icting the movements and population structure of groundfishes are just as re
l as the more obvious effects of estuaries and headlands on anadromous speci
s, as in the many distinct stocks of the Pacific salmons. Clearly, we must k
ow about these local features-as any good fishermen already does-and take th
m into account in the design of rules that govern fishing activity. By ignor
ng these local scale aspects of the ecosystem we have put both the stocks an
the livelihood of the fishing industry at risk. In this respect broad-scale
management is neither cautious nor economical.
In summary, ecological theory and growing scientific evidence point to the i
portance of localized movements and adaptations of fish populations. These p
tterns create diversity and resilience in the ecosystem. They are a fundamen
al aspect of the biological productivity of our fishery, and can no longer b
ignored. When we do ignore them we make it almost impossible for us to fulf
ll four fundamental requirements for resource management: to match fishing e
fort to the ability of stocks to rebuild; to properly address the conservati
n of system habitat and structure; to develop the stewardship incentives app
opriate to sustainable conservation; and to exercise reasonable precaution i
decision-making. These are extremely serious problems. If they are not addr
ssed, management will fail to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fishe
ies Act and the fishery will continue to limp along from crisis to crisis.
Area management creates a structure in which we can begin to address these p
oblems. It complements regional coordination with finer-scale management. It
makes it easier to match effort to the resiliency of the system; it moves us
towards practical ways of dealing with habitat and system structure; and it
akes it easier to develop appropriate stewardship incentives for users. Most
of all, it creates an environment in which we can learn and adapt, one that
s amenable to adaptive management (Walters, 1986). We understand the problem
fishermen, scientists, and administrators will face in a transition to area
management, but the costs of continuing with the current broad-scale approac
are unacceptable from both a conservation and an economic perspective.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Les Kaufman, Boston University
Dr. Jim Wilson, University of Maine
The undersigned also endorse the basic points made in this letter.
Literature Cited
Ames, T. In press. Atlantic cod structure in the Gulf of Maine. Transacti
ns of the American Fisheries Society.
Bentzen, P., Taggart, C. Ruzzante, D., Cook, D. 1996. Microsatellite polym
rphism and the population structure of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the no
thwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2706 - 2721.
Levin, S. A. 1998. Fragile Dominions: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Bo
ks. Reading, MA
Lindholm, J. and P. Auster. 2003. Site utilization by Atlantic cod (Gadus mo
hua) in off-shore gravel habitat as determined by acoustic
telemetry: implications for the design of marine protected areas. Marine Tec
nology Society Journal 37: 27-34.
Lindholm, J., P.Auster and L. Kaufman. In Prep. Site attachment and movement
of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) on piled boulder reefs in the southern Gulf o
Maine.
Ostrom, etal. 2002, Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press, 2002. (com
ittee on human dimensions of global change, national research council)
Ostrom 1990, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collec
ive action, Cambridge university press, NY
Perkins, H. C., Chenoweth, S. B. and Langton, R. W. 1997. The Gulf of Main
Atlantic cod complex, patterns of distribution and movement of the Sheepsco
Bay substock. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquacult. Supp. 3. 101 - 107.
Preble, D. and C. Safina. 2002. A Rising Tide for Ethics. In: S. Kellert,
Ed. The Good In Nature and Humanity. Island Press. Washington, DC.
Ruzzante, D. Taggart, C. and Cook, D. 1996a. Spatial and temporal variatio
in the genetic composition of a larval cod (Gadus morhua) aggregation: coho
t contribution and genetic stability. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2695 -
2705.
Ruzzante, D., Taggart, C., Cook, D., Goddard, S. 1996b. Genetic differenti
tion between inshore and offshore Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off Newfoundla
d: microsatellite DNA variation and antifreeze level. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. S
i. 53: 634 - 645.
Thorrold, S. R., Latkoczy, C., Swart, P. K., Jones, C. M. 2001. Natal homi
g in a marine fish metapopulation. Science. 291: 297 - 299.
Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillian,
New York.
Wroblewski, J. S., Smedbol, R. K, Taggart, C. T., Goddard, S. V. 1996. Mov
ments of farmed and wild Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) released in Trinity Bay
Newfoundalnd. Mar. Biol. 124: 619 - 627.
[ Part 5: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:42:27 -0400
From: Christopher Lusk <clusk@UDEC.CL>
Subject: digitising plant architecture
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Dear Eco-loggers
I'm interested in hearing from anybody who has worked with sonic or
magnetic digitisers. I have to digitise architecture of tree seedlings
ranging in height from 10 to 50 cm. Most of the work will be done inside,
in a building with quite a lot of structural metal.
My questions:
1. Magnetic digitisers don't like metal. But, how far away from the metal
does the instrument have to be? Are magnetic digitisers simply no-go inside
buildings with metal beams?
2. Do sonic digitisers have any important disadvantages for this sort of wor
?
Any comments would be appreciated
Chris Lusk
Departamento de Botánica
Universidad de Concepción
Casilla 160-C
Concepción
CHILE
-----
[ Part 6: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:31:04 -0700
From: "Weisberg, Peter" <pweisberg@CABNR.UNR.EDU>
Subject: M.S. assistantship available
Graduate Assistantship (M.S.) in Landscape Ecology:
Fire History in the Great Basin
University of Nevada - Reno, Department of Environmental and Resource
Sciences
A graduate assistantship (M.S.) in landscape ecology is available
beginning Spring Semester (January) 2004. Later start dates will be
considered. Research project will focus on the fire history of
pinyon-juniper woodland in central and eastern Nevada, particularly the
interactions of fire with past grazing and land use practices, Native
American land use, and climatic variability. The student will apply
dendrochronological (tree-ring-based) methods to reconstruct fire
history, and use GIS to interpret results within a spatial context. The
student will be jointly supervised by Dr. Peter Weisberg
(http://www.ag.unr.edu/ers/directory/Weisberg.htm), landscape ecologist
at the Dept. of Environmental and Resource Sciences, and Dr. Franco
Biondi (http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/fbiondi/), dendrochronologist at
the Dept. of Geography. The rationale for this BLM-funded study is an
improved understanding of pinyon-juniper expansion, which is a
widespread phenomenon across the Great Basin. Students should have an
undergraduate degree in ecology, geography, forestry, range science,
natural resource management, or a related field. Strong quantitative
skills and a background in GIS applications are also highly desirable.
The assistantship includes a starting salary of $16,000, pays health
insurance benefits, and covers the cost of tuition. The student will
pursue an M.S. degree in Environmental and Natural Resource Science.
Additional information on graduate study at the University of Nevada -
Reno can be found at: http://www.vpr.unr.edu/grad2/.
Additional information on the Department of Environmental and Resource
Sciences can be found at: http://www.ag.unr.edu/ers/Default.htm.
To apply, please send: 1) letter of interest stating professional goals,
research interests, and qualifications, 2) a resume or CV, 3)unofficial
copies of transcripts and GRE scores, and 4) the names, affiliations,
email addresses, and phone numbers of three references.
For more information about this position, or to apply, please contact:
Peter Weisberg, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Environmental and Resource Sciences
University of Nevada, Reno
1000 Valley Road / MS 186
Reno, NV 89512 USA
phone: 775-784-7573
fax: 775-784-4583
email: pweisberg@cabnr.unr.edu
web: http://www.ag.unr.edu/ers/directory/Weisberg.htm
[ Part 7: "Included Message" ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:07:47 -0400
From: Peter Abrams <abrams@ZOO.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: postdoctoral positions
Theoretical Biology: Postdoctoral Positions Available
Two postdoctoral positions to work with Peter Abrams at the University of
Toronto on projects combining models of population dynamics with evolution,
behavior, or other adaptive processes. Positions are for 2 years; salary
$37,000-40,000 Canadian per year depending on qualifications. Send a
curriculum vitae, copies of 2 publications, and names of two people who
could provide letters of references to:
Peter Abrams
Department of Zoology
University of Toronto
25 Harbord St.
Toronto, ON M5S 3G5 Canada
email address: abrams@zoo.utoronto.ca
(application by email is fine as are electronic copies of publications)
Peter Abrams
Professor of Zoology
University of Toronto
25 Harbord St.
Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5
Canada
416-978-1014
fax 416-978-8532
abrams@zoo.utoronto.ca
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙
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