To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 17 Jul 2005 to 18 Jul 2005 (#2005-177)
There are 10 messages totalling 854 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Conservation Program Bias? (3)
2. Postdoctoral Research Opportunity: Zooplankton Ecology and Biological
Invasions
3. Job available at Jones Ecological Research Center
4. Bird Monitoring Field Crew Leaders (2 - 4)
5. Bird Monitoring Field Crew Members ( 8 - 12)
6. vegetation cover, NE USA
7. Research tech job announcement
8. funding and geographic locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:11:15 -0400
From: Michael Welker <herpcon@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
Warren and All,
I take exception to: "We (meaning conservationists and our stakeholders)
favor charismatic large mammal species over 'chiggy-rats'." I consider
myself a conservationist and a stakeholder but I do not support the single
species and game management approaches that currently dominate wildlife
funding and management. Maintaining biodiversity and healthy wildlife
populations of all species should be paramount to trophies, game management,
property rights, our current economic system, personal "rights" or anything
else. Our current situation favors economics over wildlife and then add to
that game animals favoring non-game. This situation is really "out of whack"
and of course must be corrected in order for conservation to truly work. I
think it is a well known fact that most conservationists, ecologists and
wildlife biologists nowadays have the foresight and intelligence to try and
get away from single species and game management because it simply is wrong.
We are focusing more on maintaining biodiversity, natural habitats,
landscape ecology and species assemblages. It has been said that the biggest
contribution game management has made is that land is preserved in a
semi-natural state. We need to move forward. We can thank game management
for its contribution but it is time to move on to a higher level.
Take Care,
Michael E. Welker
Herpetologist & Wildlife Scientist
MS & GIS Student
University of Denver
1505 Fort Clarke Blvd. Apt. 8-101
Gainesville, Florida 32606 USA
352-332-0896 (home)
352-256-4000 (cell)
352-333-8106 (fax)
herpcon@cox.net
The views and opinions expressed in my emails are purely my own.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <aney@COHO.NET>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
> If I understand your question right, Josh, the answer is pretty simple:
> most
> conservation programs have inherent bias. We (meaning conservationists
> and
> our stakeholders) favor charismatic large mammal species over
> "chiggy-rats."
> We favor game and song birds over "creepy-crawlers." We favor salmon a
d
> trout over lampreys and "minners." We manage for trophies, whether they
be
> deer with big racks or large trout; and then we also try to manage for
> high
> recreational returns in terms of fish per angler or hunter success rate
.
> Part of the reason, of course, is that fee-paying recreationists suppor
> the
> bulk of our fish and wildlife conservation efforts.
>
> If this is what you are asking about, I could provide more detailed
> specifics and examples.
>
> Warren Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Joshua Walters
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July, 2005 13:25
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Conservation Program Bias?
>
>
> I'm hoping the ECOLOG community can shed some light on an issue I've be
n
> contemplating recently: the prevalence of biases in the development of
> conservation programs.
>
> Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
> documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
> priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally,
> commercially,
> or for subsistence).
>
> For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups
> could
> influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding programs.
> Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of their target
> species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is primarily o
> large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and commercial
> fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated by larger
> individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature individual
> (i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic salmon or jack
> in
> Pacific salmon).
>
> In essence, user group concerns may bias conservation efforts away from
> protecting the entire population equally. Thus, attention and resource
> may be shifted away from 'pure' conservation issues such as protecting
he
> diversity of genotypes and/or phenotypes found in the natural populatio
.
>
> If anyone can recall examples of this type of bias in a conservation
> program, please contact me. Published accounts are preferred, but even
> anecdotal evidence will be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks for your time and contributions in advance,
>
> Josh Walters
>
> Josh Walters
> MSc Candidate
> University of Toronto
> Department of Zoology
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:07:15 -0700
From: "Warren W. Aney" <aney@COHO.NET>
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
Michael is very correct in taking expection to what I wrote, and I'm pleased
that he did. I wrote what I did to describe the current and past reality,
not the desired future condition of wildlife conservation. I apologize for
an obtuse attempt to be facetious.
Warren Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Welker [mailto:herpcon@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, 17 July, 2005 22:11
To: aney@usa.net; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
Warren and All,
I take exception to: "We (meaning conservationists and our stakeholders)
favor charismatic large mammal species over 'chiggy-rats'." I consider
myself a conservationist and a stakeholder but I do not support the single
species and game management approaches that currently dominate wildlife
funding and management. Maintaining biodiversity and healthy wildlife
populations of all species should be paramount to trophies, game management,
property rights, our current economic system, personal "rights" or anything
else. Our current situation favors economics over wildlife and then add to
that game animals favoring non-game. This situation is really "out of whack"
and of course must be corrected in order for conservation to truly work. I
think it is a well known fact that most conservationists, ecologists and
wildlife biologists nowadays have the foresight and intelligence to try and
get away from single species and game management because it simply is wrong.
We are focusing more on maintaining biodiversity, natural habitats,
landscape ecology and species assemblages. It has been said that the biggest
contribution game management has made is that land is preserved in a
semi-natural state. We need to move forward. We can thank game management
for its contribution but it is time to move on to a higher level.
Take Care,
Michael E. Welker
Herpetologist & Wildlife Scientist
MS & GIS Student
University of Denver
1505 Fort Clarke Blvd. Apt. 8-101
Gainesville, Florida 32606 USA
352-332-0896 (home)
352-256-4000 (cell)
352-333-8106 (fax)
herpcon@cox.net
The views and opinions expressed in my emails are purely my own.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <aney@COHO.NET>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
> If I understand your question right, Josh, the answer is pretty simple:
> most
> conservation programs have inherent bias. We (meaning conservationists
> and
> our stakeholders) favor charismatic large mammal species over
> "chiggy-rats."
> We favor game and song birds over "creepy-crawlers." We favor salmon a
d
> trout over lampreys and "minners." We manage for trophies, whether they
be
> deer with big racks or large trout; and then we also try to manage for
> high
> recreational returns in terms of fish per angler or hunter success rate
.
> Part of the reason, of course, is that fee-paying recreationists suppor
> the
> bulk of our fish and wildlife conservation efforts.
>
> If this is what you are asking about, I could provide more detailed
> specifics and examples.
>
> Warren Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Joshua Walters
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July, 2005 13:25
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Conservation Program Bias?
>
>
> I'm hoping the ECOLOG community can shed some light on an issue I've be
n
> contemplating recently: the prevalence of biases in the development of
> conservation programs.
>
> Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
> documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
> priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally,
> commercially,
> or for subsistence).
>
> For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups
> could
> influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding programs.
> Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of their target
> species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is primarily o
> large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and commercial
> fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated by larger
> individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature individual
> (i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic salmon or jack
> in
> Pacific salmon).
>
> In essence, user group concerns may bias conservation efforts away from
> protecting the entire population equally. Thus, attention and resource
> may be shifted away from 'pure' conservation issues such as protecting
he
> diversity of genotypes and/or phenotypes found in the natural populatio
.
>
> If anyone can recall examples of this type of bias in a conservation
> program, please contact me. Published accounts are preferred, but even
> anecdotal evidence will be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks for your time and contributions in advance,
>
> Josh Walters
>
> Josh Walters
> MSc Candidate
> University of Toronto
> Department of Zoology
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:39:11 -0400
From: "Minton, Mark" <mintonm@SI.EDU>
Subject: Postdoctoral Research Opportunity: Zooplankton Ecology and Biologi
al Invasions
Postdoctoral Research Opportunity: Zooplankton Ecology, Commercial
Shipping, and Biological Invasions
Description: The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) has
developed one of the largest coastal invasions research program in the
United States, The Marine Invasions Research Laboratory
(http://invasions.si.edu/). We have a staff of approximately 25
biologists, who conduct research throughout the country and overseas.=20
We currently seek a postdoctoral researcher to participate in our
research program that aims to characterize patterns and interactive
relationships among commercial shipping, trade, and biological invasions
in coastal ecosystems of the U.S. =20
=20
Ships are a key transfer mechanism for coastal organisms throughout the
world, leading to biological invasions. A significant component of our
research strives to understand historical relationships of shipping to
global trade and invasions, and to forecast possible consequences of
changes in shipping and ballast management practices.
=20
The researcher will participate as a member of a research team and will
be expected to contribute strongly on analysis of shipping patterns and
zooplankton communities associated with ships. In addition, the
researcher will examine physiological (and especially salinity)
tolerance of zooplankton, using laboratory experiments and
literature-based review. General responsibilities will include:
* Design and Implementation of Research to Address Specific
Questions and Hypotheses;
* Extensive Literature-based Research on Shipping and Biota
Associated with Ships;
* Data Management & Statistical Analysis;
* Writing of Reports & Publications.
=20
Education / Experience: PhD in Ecology, Biology, Physiology, or related
field. Experience with zooplankton analysis, identification, and
laboratory or field experiments. Candidates must have a strong
background in statistics and data management. Knowledge of
physiological ecology is desirable. Knowledge of shipping or trade
statistics is also desirable. Some quantitative (modeling) ability is a
plus, but not essential.
=20
Skills: Applicant must be organized, self motivated, independent and
pro-active. Strong communication skills and ability to work as part of
a research team are required as is a proven talent to write reports and
publications. Experience giving presentations to various audiences
(e.g., scientific conferences, agencies, and the public) desirable.
Some travel required.
=20
Salary: $35,000 plus benefits.
=20
Duration: 1 year, with prospect of renewal. Start as soon as August
2005.
=20
Location: Position is based at the Marine Invasion Research Lab,
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), Edgewater, Maryland,
USA. SERC is a research center of the Smithsonian Institution, located
on the western shore of Chesapeake Bay, approximately 10 miles south of
Annapolis, 40 miles west of Washington D.C., and 40 miles south of
Baltimore.
=20
To Apply: Please submit current CV, letter describing research
experience and interest, as well as contact information (names, phone
numbers, and email addresses) for 3 references. For full consideration,
please submit application materials by 1 August 2005. Applications
should be submitted to Amanda Gilborn, gilborna@si.edu, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 21037 USA.
Email submission preferred. =20
=20
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:17:19 -0400
From: Stephen Pecot <specot@JONESCTR.ORG>
Subject: Job available at Jones Ecological Research Center
JOSEPH W. JONES ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER / ICHAUWAY, INC.
FOREST ECOLOGY RESEARCH HOURLY WORKER
The Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center invites applications for a
Temporary Research Hourly Worker position. This is a 7-month position,
from now to December 2005. The successful candidate will assist with all
aspects of ongoing research, including a variety of field and lab-based
work. Field-related activities involve maintenance of irrigation
equipment, collecting samples at the whole-plant level as well as
assisting with the operation of root minirhizotron equipment. Laboratory
duties include processing samples as well as data entry. The employee will
also assist with the general maintenance of the laboratory space and
equipment.
The 28,000-acre Research Center is located approximately 30 miles south of
Albany, Georgia. The Center^Ņs research, education, and conservation
programs focus on ecology and natural resource management. The site
includes 16,000 acres of longleaf pine forests, over 1,000 acres of
wetlands, and 26 miles of stream and river ecosystems.
Job Requirements: Ability to conduct moderate physical activity in the
field under a variety of weather conditions, follow instructions, and work
independently or as part of a team.
Minimum qualifications: Associate^Ņs or Bachelor^Ņs degree with an interest
in biology, ecology, forestry, agronomy, or related field. Preference
given to those with an interest in whole-plant physiology.
Compensation is $9.00 per hour ($7.00 per hour with onsite housing
offered). No benefits package is available.
A letter of application, resume, and a list of three references should be
mailed to:
Cindy Craft, Forest Ecology II Hourly Position, Joseph W. Jones Ecological
Research Center, Rt. 2, Box 2324, Newton, GA 39870, faxed to (229) 734-
4707 or emailed to: cindy.craft@jonesctr.org.
Specific questions regarding this position may be e-mailed to:
stephen.pecot@jonesctr.org
Applicants will be reviewed until the position is filled. The Joseph W.
Jones Ecological Research Center is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:00 -0500
From: Kimberly Wells <Kimberly.Wells@MDC.MO.GOV>
Subject: Bird Monitoring Field Crew Leaders (2 - 4)
Bird Monitoring Field Crew Supervisors (2 - 4)
Position Description
The Missouri Department of Conservation has an opening for full-time (40 hou
s/week) temporary field-crew supervisors (2-4) to assist with evaluating the
USDA program Habitat Buffers for Upland Wildlife (CP 33) and other statewide
bird monitoring efforts. Missouri is one of 35 target states that will be c
ordinating monitoring protocols in conjunction with the Southeast Quail Stud
Group and the USDA. Habitat Buffers for Upland Wildlife is a new provision
under the 2002 Farm Bill that provides incentives to landowners to specifica
ly manage their land for northern bobwhites. Habitat conditions and abundan
e of bobwhites and grassland birds will be measured during fall (bobwhites o
ly) and early summer (bobwhites and songbirds).
Information on the conservation provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill provisions
an be found at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/conservation_fb.html. Informati
n on the CP 33 monitoring protocol is located at http://teamquail.tamu.edu/p
blications/HabitatBuffersforUplandBirdsCP33.pdf
Duration: mid-September 2005 through November 2005
Location: various (there will be multiple crews distributed and traveling ar
und the state)
Title: Resource assistant (CS10)
Pay: $9.10/hour (40 hours/week)
Housing will be provided. Work vehicles will be available for portions of t
e season, but applicants should also be willing to use their personal vehicl
to receive mileage reimbursement.
General Responsibilities include:
Crew Leaders:
1) Schedule sampling for the assigned field crew
2) Supervise the crew in the field conducting bird monitoring using point
distance sampling and vegetation sampling
3) Assign work duties, assist with coordination of housing logistics,
maintain positive working relationships with private landowners, and
monitor work habitats and productivity of technicians
4) Participate in field data collection, data management, and data entry
Training in point distance sampling will be provided.
Core Competencies and Special Ability Requirements:
Ability to develop and sustain cooperative working relationships.
Ability to demonstrate technical proficiency in areas of responsibility.
Ability to demonstrate regular and predictable attendance.
Ability to obtain a current, valid drive license by the date of employment.
Ability to maintain accurate data base.
Ability to keep an accurate record of supplies, services and time reports.
Ability to coach and challenge others to achieve their potential.
Basic Qualifications:
* B.S. in natural resources, wildlife biology, or related field
* Must pass a pre-employment drug test
* Prior supervisory experience
Preferred Qualifications:
* Experience with field work in rural settings
* Familiarity with agricultural practices
* Strong work ethic
* Prior supervisory experience with field crews
* Database management and GIS experience
* Ability to lead and motivate others
Contact information:
Send resume via email as Word attachment to Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov. Incl
de names and contact information for references and most recent 3 supervisor
. For more information, contact Kim Wells at Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov or (
73) 882 9909 ext. 3292 or Tony Elliott at Tony.Elliott@mdc.mo.gov or (660) 2
9 4245. Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until su
table candidates are identified.
Kim Suedkamp Wells, Ph.D.
Resource Scientist
Agricultural Ecosytems Field Station
Missouri Department of Conservation
1110 S. College Avenue
Columbia, MO 65201
(573) 882 9909 ext. 3292
Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:18:13 -0700
From: Sean Barry <SBarry@ENTRIX.COM>
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
Joshua queried:
>Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
>documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
>priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally,
commercially,
>or for subsistence).
>For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups
could
>influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding programs.
>Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of their target
>species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is primarily of
>large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and commercial
>fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated by larger
>individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature individuals
>(i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic salmon or jacks
in
>Pacific salmon).
Every conservation program is biased by priority--there are always many
more ways to spend money on conservation than there are funds available,
so whatever we prioritize is what gets the funds. Most conservation
programs in the US are funded primarily by sportsmen (although private
donations to such groups as the Nature Conservancy also account for a
hefty share) so naturally one might assume that sportsmen have and exert a
large influence in their design and execution. In fact I doubt that's the
case because sportsmen hardly speak with one voice about their own
desires, and in any case most conservation programs are primarily based on
habitat protection or restoration, possibly with limited releases of
transplanted individuals. "Captive breeding" is rare to unheard-of as a
significant part of a conservation program, with the possible rare
exception of hatchery stock sources. Such hatchery stock may contribute
to salmonid restoration, but at least in California that program is geared
primarily toward trying to ensure the genetic and behavioral integrity of
the various seasonal chinook salmon Central Valley "runs" and steelhead
ESU preservation, regardless of what the sportsmen who pay for the progams
might "want" (in general I believe they just want their money to be used
productively, and anyway it will require restoration of entire river
basins to dam-free condition followed by decades of habitat rehabilitation
to restore those fisheries to authentic sport and commercial fishing
status--not going to happen). What you are suggesting I believe went
out with 19th century eugenics--anyone with an elementary knowledge of
population genetics would see the futility and waste of trying to do what
you suggest at a population level. Bias in conservation programs is most
likely to come from other sources, notably government figures (i.e.,
politicians), and those sources are more likely to bias based on party
politics and personal prejudice than on genetics. Look to that source for
really egregious bias--you won't have to look far.
Sean Barry
Joshua Walters <the_floater@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
07/14/2005 04:24 PM AST
Please respond to Joshua Walters
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Conservation Program Bias?
I'm hoping the ECOLOG community can shed some light on an issue I've been
contemplating recently: the prevalence of biases in the development of
conservation programs.
Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally,
commercially,
or for subsistence).
For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups
could
influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding programs.
Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of their target
species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is primarily of
large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and commercial
fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated by larger
individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature individuals
(i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic salmon or jacks
in
Pacific salmon).
In essence, user group concerns may bias conservation efforts away from
protecting the entire population equally. Thus, attention and resources
may be shifted away from 'pure' conservation issues such as protecting the
diversity of genotypes and/or phenotypes found in the natural population.
If anyone can recall examples of this type of bias in a conservation
program, please contact me. Published accounts are preferred, but even
anecdotal evidence will be very much appreciated.
Thanks for your time and contributions in advance,
Josh Walters
Josh Walters
MSc Candidate
University of Toronto
Department of Zoology
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:23:08 -0500
From: Kimberly Wells <Kimberly.Wells@MDC.MO.GOV>
Subject: Bird Monitoring Field Crew Members ( 8 - 12)
Bird Monitoring Field Crew Members (8 - 12)
Position Description
The Missouri Department of Conservation has an opening for full-time (40 hou
s/week) temporary field crews (8-12) to assist with evaluating the USDA prog
am Habitat Buffers for Upland Wildlife (CP 33) and other statewide bird moni
oring efforts. Missouri is one of 35 target states that will be coordinatin
monitoring protocols in conjunction with the Southeast Quail Study Group an
the USDA. Habitat Buffers for Upland Wildlife is a new provision under the
2002 Farm Bill that provides incentives to landowners to specifically manage
their land for northern bobwhites. Habitat conditions and abundance of bobw
ites and grassland birds will be measured during fall (bobwhites only) and e
rly summer (bobwhites and songbirds).
Information on the conservation provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill provisions
an be found at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/conservation_fb.html. Informati
n on the CP 33 monitoring protocol is located at http://teamquail.tamu.edu/p
blications/HabitatBuffersforUplandBirdsCP33.pdf
Duration: mid-September 2005 through November 2005
Location: various (there will be multiple crews distributed and traveling ar
und the state)
Title: Resource technician (CS8)
Pay: $8.29/hour (40 hours/week)
Housing will be provided. Work vehicles may also be available for portions
f the season, but crew members should also be willing to use their personal
ehicles for mileage reimbursement.
General Responsibilities include:
Crew Members:
1) Conduct bird monitoring using point distance sampling and conduct
vegetation sampling
2) Assist with data management and entry
3) Work collaboratively with team members and supervisors
Training in point distance sampling will be provided.
Core Competencies and Special Ability Requirements:
Ability to develop and sustain cooperative working relationships.
Ability to demonstrate technical proficiency in areas of responsibility.
Ability to demonstrate regular and predictable attendance.
Ability to obtain a current, valid drive license by the date of employment.
Basic Qualifications:
* One year of college experience
* Must pass a pre-employment drug test
* Prior field experience
* Strong work ethic
Preferred Qualifications:
* B.S. in wildlife ecology, natural resources, or related field
* Experience with field work in rural settings
* Prior experience with bird monitoring in the Midwest
* Familiarity with agricultural practices
Contact information:
Send resume via email as Word attachment to Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov. Incl
de names and contact information for references and most recent 3 supervisor
. For more information, contact Kim Wells at Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov or (
73) 882 9909 ext. 3292 or Tony Elliott at Tony.Elliott@mdc.mo.gov or (660) 2
9 4245.
Kim Suedkamp Wells, Ph.D.
Resource Scientist
Agricultural Ecosytems Field Station
Missouri Department of Conservation
1110 S. College Avenue
Columbia, MO 65201
(573) 882 9909 ext. 3292
Kimberly.Wells@mdc.mo.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:09:59 -0400
From: Beth Leger <eleger@LIFE.BIO.SUNYSB.EDU>
Subject: vegetation cover, NE USA
Hi all,
I'm looking for information on the vegetation cover of the Blue Ridge
Mountains (or the mid-atlantic USA in general) in 1700, 1800, 1900, and
2000.
Does anyone know where I might find this type of information?
Ideally, I'd like to know the cover of Quercus, Castanea, Fagus, and Acer,
but woody vegetation in general would be helpful, too.
Thanks for any suggestions,
Beth Leger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:22:17 -0700
From: Greg Newman <gsn3@DANA.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Research tech job announcement
Northern Arizona University
Job Vacancy Announcement
Position: Research Technician
Vacancy Number: 555004
Date Posted: 07/08/2005
Department: School of Forestry
Status: Full-Time, Regular - Classified Staff
Location: Flagstaff
Special Information
The position begins September 19, 2005 (the exact starting date is negotiabl
)
and is available for a period of two years, with the possibility of renewal
depending on performance and funding. Incumbent is not eligible for layoff o
recall status.
Job Description
The individual will be primarily responsible for laboratory and field resear
h
(including data collection, analysis, and report writing) associated with tw
projects: 1) a U.S. Forest Service-supported national project concerning the
effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on soil biodiversity and
nutrient cycling in fire-adapted forests; and 2) a National Science
Foundation-supported project assessing the utility of 15N natural abundance
measurements of the soil microbial biomass as an index of soil N
transformations.
The successful candidate also will conduct plant and soil research associate
with a wide array of other projects being conducted by members of the
laboratory research group, as well as be responsible for the management of t
e
Ecosystem Ecology laboratory under the direction of Dr. Hart.
Minimum Qualifications
Bachelor's degree in Biology, Environmental Science, Forestry, Soil Science,
or closely related field, OR,
Four years research experience in one of these fields.
Any equivalent combination of experience, training and/or education.
Preferred Qualifications
Preference will be given to applicants that have had previous experience as
member in or a manager of an analytical research laboratory in the
environmental sciences.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Strong organizational skills.
The ability to work independently with excellent laboratory, field, and
computer skills.
Knowledge of basic analytical chemistry (how to make reagents, types of
labware and their proper use, etc.) and good laboratory etiquette.
Knowledge and experience in the basic analytical techniques associated with
the chemical and biological analyses of plant, soil, and water samples, as
well as stable isotope analyses of these materials.
Knowledge and skill in the proper use of modern analytical equipment, such a
:
analytical balances, centrifuges, colorimetric auto analyzers, elemental
analyzers, isotope-ratio mass spectrometers, gas chromatographs, microscopes
and pH meters.
Knowledge and skill in working with soil microorganisms.
Knowledge of data management, experimental design, and statistical analyses
n
ecological studies.
Strong general computer skills and working knowledge of data management, wor
processing, webpage management, and statistical software.
Ability to work long hours doing research at remote sites.
Ability to work well with other researchers.
Ability to obtain a valid Arizona Driver^Rs License.
Ability to work effectively with people from a variety of culturally diverse
backgrounds.
General Information
A criminal and employment history background investigation will be performed
prior to employment offer.
Salary
$25,013-$29,000 depending on experience, and includes full benefits.
Application Deadline
Open until further notice.
Application Procedure
Please submit a completed NAU application to Human Resources
http://hr.nau.edu/m/job/300/316/555004.
For additional details regarding this position, please contact Dr. Stephen C
Hart via one of the following ways: Email: steve.hart@nau.edu
Phone:928-523-6637
--------------------------------------------------
Stephen C. Hart
Professor of Ecosystem Ecology
School of Forestry
Northern Arizona University
POB 15018
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5018
http://www.for.nau.edu/hartlab/
http://www.for.nau.edu/about/faculty/sch.htm
Sabbatical Address (Aug. 1, 2004 - July 31, 2005)
U.S. Geological Survey
Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center
BRD/Kilauea Field Station
PO Box 52, Building 216
Hawaii National Park, HI 96718
Email: steve.hart@nau.edu
Phone: 808-985-6076
FAX: 808-967-7153
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:55:24 -0700
From: Laura Nagy <Nagy.Laura@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
Subject: funding and geographic locations
Dear Ecologgers,
I have been struggling to find references on two different topics. Iā^Ą^Łve
tried using the standard search engines to no avail.
1) Who is funding conservation/ecology/population-level research (i.e.,
federal, state, industry sources)? Ideally, Iā^Ą^Łd like to know
specifically about conservation biology and/or population modeling;
however, Iā^Ą^Łd be grateful for anything pertaining to funding for ecology.
2) Is there a geographic bias in conservation/ecology/population-level
research? The assumption that I have heard from talking with people is
that there is a North American bias, but I have not been able to find
papers that explicitly state this or another opinion.
Any articles, suggestions, or leads would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Laura Nagy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura R. Nagy, Ph.D.
Ecologist
Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
541-754-4773 (phone)
541-754-4799 (fax)
------------------------------
From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Tue Jul 19 17:33:26 2005
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400
From: ESANEWS automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: Society News and Business Only"
<ESANEWS@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
To: ESANEWS@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: ESANEWS Digest - 24 Jun 2005 to 14 Jul 2005 (#2005-18)
There is 1 message totalling 223 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Policy News from ESA's Public Affairs Office
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:46 -0600
From: David Inouye <inouye@MAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Policy News from ESA's Public Affairs Office
Policy News from ESA's Public Affairs Office
A Bi-Weekly Publication of the Ecological Society of America
July 8, 2005
In this Issue:
G-8 AGREES TO GENERAL GLOBAL WARMING PLAN
SENATE APPROVES CAFTA
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPS BILL CLEARS SENATE
SENATORS INTRODUCE MERCURY REVIEW RESOLUTION
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY RELEASED
BUSH UNVEILS BILL TO HEIGHTEN SCRUTINY OF AGENCIES
G-8 AGREES TO GENERAL GLOBAL WARMING PLAN
Leaders of the world's eight major industrial nations agreed to take
immediate steps to curb global warming as part of the Group of Eight
summit, though they will not set concrete heat-trapping gas reductions
or specify how much money they will spend.
The two-page document, a drastically slimmed-down version of earlier G-8
drafts, states that although some uncertainties about climate change
remain, "we know enough to act now and to put ourselves on a path to
slow, and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of
greenhouse gases."
It also suggests that "human activities contribute in large part to
increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our earth
surface," and says all the countries that have pledged to bring
greenhouse gases down to 1990 levels by 2012 as part of the Kyoto
Protocol "welcome its entry into force and will work to make it a
success."
Every G-8 member except for the United States -- Britain, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia -- has ratified the Kyoto
Protocol.
U.S. officials resisted calls from allies to adopt a stricter framework
for addressing climate change. They managed to excise swaths of text
that called for "ambitious" greenhouse gas reductions and committed G-8
countries to spending a specific amount on environmentally friendly
projects. They eliminated the opening sentence, "Our world is warming,"
as well as lengthy descriptions of how melting glaciers and rising sea
levels reflect recent climate change.
SENATE APPROVES CAFTA
The Senate approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
rejecting an argument from critics that the pact weakens environmental
laws through a series of "gaps and loopholes" governing trade and
investment in the region.
CAFTA -- which includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic -- likely will face a closer vote
in the House, which is expected to take up the issue in late July.
Environmental groups have joined labor unions to try to block
congressional ratification of the deal, saying negotiators did not
adequately address environmental issues. Some have said CAFTA's
provisions would bar governments from setting limits on mining and
logging activities in ecologically sensitive areas, and from requiring
agribusinesses to use pesticides safely.
But Bush administration officials have said they included a provision in
CAFTA that would add public participation requirements to the agreement,
giving individuals and nongovernmental organizations the ability to call
for an investigation if a government is not enforcing environmental
laws. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said an Environmental
Cooperation Agreement was negotiated in tandem with CAFTA that in part
establishes benchmarks to identify short- and long-term goals for
environmental protections in Central America and the Dominican Republic.
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPS BILL CLEARS SENATE
The Senate approved a $31.2 billion Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water
funding bill that boosts several nuclear power programs amid overall
proposed increases for the Energy Department and other agencies. The
bill includes $504 million for the Energy Department's Biological and
Environmental Research programs, $48 million more than the President's
budget request, but $22 million below that of the House version. The
measure now goes to a conference committee with the House.
SENATORS INTRODUCE MERCURY REVIEW RESOLUTION
Senate opponents to the Bush administration's cap-and-trade regulations
for power plant mercury pollution say they have adequate support to
force a floor vote that could override the controversial plan.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Jim Jeffords
(I-VT) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution along with 27
cosponsors that would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to start over on its mercury rule. The resolution has sufficient backing
to ultimately bypass the jurisdiction of Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), a supporter of the
administration's environmental policies, and at least receive an
up-or-down vote later this summer in the Senate, a Leahy spokesman said.
To pass, a resolution must garner a simple majority in both chambers of
Congress, as well as the president's signature. Prospects in the
GOP-controlled House are less certain for critics of EPA's mercury plan.
Still, Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) are poised to
introduce a corresponding resolution.
Leahy and Collins have been among the most vocal critics of the
administration's mercury rules, which overturn a Clinton administration
determination that nearly all of the nation's coal- and oil-fired power
plants must install state-of-the-art pollution controls. The rules also
set up a cap-and-trade program that would limit mercury emissions from
current levels of 48 tons down to 38 tons in 2010 and 15 tons in 2018.
Inhofe spokesman Bill Holbrook said the Leahy-Collins resolution falls
far short of the Inhofe-sponsored "Clear Skies" legislation, which would
establish new limits on power plant emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides while also eliminating several existing provisions
of the law. Inhofe's panel failed to move the Bush administration-backed
bill in spring 2005 when Republicans failed to muster a simple majority.
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY RELEASED
Great Lakes states would get a $20 billion boost to upgrade sewer
systems, battle exotic species and clean up contaminated sediments under
a plan unveiled by a special restoration task force.
Nearly $14 billion in federal and state funds would upgrade leaking
wastewater systems that cause beach closures and threaten public health,
under the proposal by the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative. The plan
also recommends spending nearly $860 million to combat invasive species
over the next five years, as well as funding remediation efforts for
contaminated sediments, habitat and wetland restoration and toxics
management. It also urges Congress to pass legislation to stop ships
from discharging ballast water in the lakes.
President Bush created the collaborative -- which includes state and
federal officials and business and nonprofit representatives -- in an
executive order signed in 2004. The group's mission is to draw a
blueprint for ecosystem stewardship and rehabilitation, with emphasis on
eight critical environmental priorities including aquatic invasive
species, habitat conservation and species management, near-shore waters
and coastal areas, areas of concern, non-point sources, toxic
pollutants, sound information base and representative indicators and
sustainability.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which plays a leading
role in Great Lakes restoration, is hesitant to put a price tag on the
proposal. "We'll learn more about the numbers and now focus not just on
the funding but on the ways to get better results," said Ben Grumbles,
head of EPA's Office of Water. The states will have to collaborate with
the federal government to address the infrastructure problem, which some
experts say will cost up to $800 billion nationwide over the next 20
years, he said.
Following a public comment period, the final strategy is due to be
released in December 2005.
BUSH UNVEILS BILL TO HEIGHTEN SCRUTINY OF AGENCIES
President Bush sent a proposal to Congress that would establish a set of
commissions to review federal programs and agencies for productivity and
efficiency -- language some say could pave the way for their
elimination.
Bush's Fiscal Year 2006 budget recommendations released in February
included basic details about the two panels -- a "Results Commission" to
review programs' efficiency and a "Sunset Commission" that sets out a
10-year period to scrutinize programs to determine whether they should
continue to exist. Congress incorporated Bush's suggestions as part of
its annual budget resolution.
A handful of Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation on this
issue dating back to the late 1990s, but no bill has made it out of
committee. Critics of the commissions have long raised alarms that
agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy
Department, and specific programs within them, could be in jeopardy.
To placate critics, one provision of the proposed bill states that "no
regulation to protect the environment" shall sunset under the law. The
legislation also says "no program related to enforcing regulations" on
the environment shall be eliminated "unless provision is made for the
continued enforcement of those regulations."
=====================================================
Sources: AAAS R&D website (www.aaas.org/spp/rd ); Environment & Energy
Daily; www.epa.gov; Greenwire; The Washington Post
Send questions or comments to Nadine Lymn, ESA Director of Public
Affairs, Nadine@esa.org or Laura Lipps, Policy Analyst, Laura@esa.org
If you received Policy News from a friend and would like to receive it
directly, please send an e-mail to listserv@listserv.umd.edu with the
following in the body of the message: sub esanews {your first and last
name}
If you wish to unsubscribe to ESANEWS and your biweekly Policy News,
send the command "signoff ESANEWS" to listserv@listserv.umd.edu
Visit ESA's website at www.esa.org
------------------------------
From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Tue Jul 19 17:33:31 2005
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:01 -0400
From: ECOLOG-L automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 13 Jul 2005 to 14 Jul 2005 (#2005-173)
There are 15 messages totalling 1047 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. peak oil
2. Penetrometer model ?
3. Is petroleum "fossil" fuel? (3)
4. High MPG Diesel vehicle is better? (3)
5. peak oil issue -- ex. use of ethanol as "renewable" energy source
6. POSTDOC: DEMOGRAPHIC MODELLING OF FOREST PROCESSES
7. Masters Level Biologist Job
8. Conservation Program Bias?
9. papers 'in press' at Journal of ecology
10. Tracking down a citation
11. Ceanothus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:17:10 -0700
From: Guy R McPherson <grm@AG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: peak oil
That's an adequate explanation for you, Warren ... but it fails to explain
why I, with my PhD (hence, I'm part of the moneyed elite), earn less than
I did when I was hired 16 years ago, relative to inflation (despite two
promotions), why I drive a 4-cylinder car, or why I use solar energy
technology in my 1,000-square-foot house. I guess some people just don't
fit in.
Moneyed elite? Yes, of course, relative to most of the people in the
world.
--Guy
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Warren W. Aney wrote:
> Gee, I didn't know PhD ecologists were among the moneyed elite. Being
> Master's degree ecologist must be why I'm stuck with a 4 cylinder compa
t
> (that I drive at a modest 65 mph because driving at 55 mph means gettin
> harassed by truckers who should be driving at 55 but don't) and a home
nder
> 2000 sq. ft. (which is smaller than the one I owned in the 1970s).
>
> Warren Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 July, 2005 19:12
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: peak oil
>
>
> Kaduk, Dr J. wrote:
>
>> yes peak oil is an interesting topic, but I am
>> baffled how fixated people are on the supply side.
>
> I think part of the answer is many of today's ecologists
> in the USA make substantial incomes. They can afford
> big fast cars and homes and don't want to give them up.
>
> However, during the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo and for about
> 10 years afterwards, a number of energy conservation
> measures were implemented in the USA that were favored
> by the ecologists of that era.
>
> a) A national speed limit of 55 MPH since both
> fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions are reduced by
> 30-40% by drving at 55 MPH vs 75 MPH.
>
> b) Vehicles were downsized and a high percentage
> fitted with 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engines instead
> of V8's.
>
> c) The physical size of most new homes was relatively
> modest by today's standards.
>
> Now I just can't picture today's $50,000+ a year Ph.D
> ecologists favoring a 55 MPH speed limit anymore. I can't
> picture them favoring a smallish 4 cylinder vehicles that take 15
> seconds to go 0 - 60 MPH anymore.
> I can't picture them favoring smallish, slowly appreciating
> homes like they didn't mind owning in the 1970's (or may
> have been forced to own since ecologists didn't make much
> money in the 70's)
>
> In addition, conservation measures like the three I listed above
> would likely weaken the American economy and hence
> significantly reduce employment and career advancement
> opportunities for ecologists,
>
> So like you said, today's affluent ecologists are fixated on
> supply, not conservation.
>
> Paul Cherubini
Read about my latest book, "Killing the Natives: Has the American Dream
Become a Nightmare?" at <http://www.whitmorebooks.com/kinahasamdrb.html>
Guy R. McPherson, Professor
University of Arizona
School of Natural Resources and
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Biological Sciences East 325
Tucson, Arizona 85721
voice: 520-621-5389
fax: 520-621-8801
email: grm@ag.arizona.edu
url: http://ag.arizona.edu/~grm/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:41:29 -0300
From: VOLTOLINI <jcvoltol@UOL.COM.BR>
Subject: Penetrometer model ?
Hi,
I have a friend interested in to study soil compactation in a project abo=
ut tourism impact but we dont now about what is the best penetrometer mod=
el ! Does anyone can help?
Also, are a more simple method to measure soil compaction ?
Thanks for any help !!!
Voltolini
Prof. Dr. J. C. VOLTOLINI
Grupo de Estudos em Ecologia de Mamiferos (ECOMAM)
Universidade de Taubate - Departamento de Biologia
Taubate, SP. 12030-010. E-Mail: jcvoltol@uol.com.br
Website: http://jcvoltol.sites.uol.com.br/
Fotos do ECOMAM: http://jcvoltol.fotoblog.uol.com.br/=0A =0A_____________=
_____________________________________________________________=0AUOL Fone:=
Fale com o Brasil e o Mundo com at=E9 90% de economia. =0Ahttp://www.uol=
.com.br/fone=0A
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:21:15 -0700
From: joseph gathman <jpgathman@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Is petroleum "fossil" fuel?
> Having said that, I believe"fossil" fuel remains an
> unproven hypothesis for many forms of hydrocarbon,
So let's say petroleum/methane are abiogenic. It
doesn't change the fact that conventional supplies are
being depleted. Those fields alleged to show some
re-filling are not making up for the shortfall.
Thomas Gold and the Russian/Ukrainian hypothesis say
that we need to drill very deep for the (allegedly)
vast cache of abiogenic stuff, which means prices
probably rise further and stay high forever. This
squeezes the less affluent majority of the global
economy. So maybe petroleum society may continue, but
global poverty and wealth disparity increase. This
has historically proven to be a bad thing for
ecosystems (trying to stay on-topic for the list
here), not to mention people.
-JPG
(Disclaimer: I'm totally dependent on the reporting of
others, having no expertise in petroleum myself.)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:23:39 -0400
From: Steve I Van Tuyl <svantuyl@FS.FED.US>
Subject: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
I have been wondering for a while now whether a high miles per gallon
diesel vehicle actually has a smaller emissions 'footprint' than a lower
mpg non-diesel vehicle. I suppose this comes from my perception that
diesel vehicles tend to have higher NOx and particulate emissions than
standard petrol vehicles. Is there someone out there can provide me with
some resources that show a good comparison of diesel versus non-diesel
emissions of all sorts? Also, any ideas on how to incorporate all of those
different types of emissions into a single score would be
appreciated...difficult, it would seem...
Steve Van Tuyl
US Forest Service
Philadelphia, PA
On 7/13/2005 Paul Spitzer wrote:
I advocate energy conservation all the way. I drive a VW Jetta diesel, and
heat at home with a Monitor. Have for years. For me this is frugal, fun,
prudent, and patriotic. I have total dismay re American society's
prodigality with fuel.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:40:37 -0400
From: Mike Aliotta <doingthatrag@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: Is petroleum "fossil" fuel?
At 12:18 PM 7/13/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Having said that, I believe"fossil" fuel remains an unproven hypothesis
or
>many forms of hydrocarbon, including petroleum and much (not all) methan
.
>They may not be biogenic in origin, although access to them is still a h
ge
>and costly issue. This hypothesis is presented in the late Thomas Gold'
>"The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Copernicus Press, 2000?). Planetary science
as
>found hydrocarbons to be widespread in the universe. This was dramatica
ly
>demonstrated during the recent Titan moon landing.
It seems to me that an "unlimited" supply of petroleum is a worse situation
for he biosphere than a limited supply. I've heard the "geologic" origin
of petroleum argument before and always wondered why crude oil is always
found in sedimentary rock that used to be shallow lake beds, swamps and
seas if it originates from the origin of the solar system.
If it simply is left over from the formation and overlays the underlying
bedrock wouldn't it be pretty much evenly distributed? Why is it generally
found in sedimentary layers from the Carboniferous period?
Aren't hydrocarbons in the universe very simple molecules such as methane.
Isn't the methane in natural gas extracted from gas pockets over the crude
oil? Sounds like a liquid and gas in equilibrium to me. Wouldn't geologic
methane have been found in the atmosphere, as on Gas Giant planets, and was
oxidized or evaporated during earth's early history?
>Since price is predicated on scarcity, oil merchants might well prefer t
at
>we ignore this hypothesis. As I understand it, we don't really know at
his
>point in our scientific understanding.
Isn't the scarcity more a result of ability to economically extract it
rather than how much is actually there? Whether its fossil or geological
we could be leaving a hell of a lot more there, but diffusely distributed,
than we can economically extract.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:36:25 +0000
From: stan moore <hawkman11@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Is petroleum "fossil" fuel?
Paul -- you may find a discussion of this issue at a website at
http://www.gasresources.net of interest. It appears that Russian
geologists, physicists, and petroleum specialists have a long history of
studying what they call "abiotic oil". The Russians and an American
colleague, Dr. J.F. Kenney claim that Thomas Gold stole and plagiarized
products of Russian academic research. Kenney also claims, and has
published a number of papers which seem to demonstrate a scientific view
that petroleum could not possibly be a result of biological detritus based
on laws of thermodynamics. The Russian theory of the abiotic origin of oil
asserts that petroleum is formed deep under the earth and migrates towards
the surface, where it tends to pool in geological formations and then
accumulate biological adulterants from the surrounding rock layers. The
Russians claim that oil is a renewable resource and that they have been able
to produce large-scale extraction in locations and at depths in which
typical western-style oil production would be considered unthinkable.
I am not able to independently assess the science used in these claims, but
I have looked at the bibliography and other information presented by Kenney
and the Russians and I believe that these claims are credible. If they are
true, then peak oil is only relevant to the extent to which oil recovery is
predicated on development of pooled oil, but if oil can be tapped at deep
underground sources, as Kenney claims and has asserted to me personally in
private emails, then society could, in theory, continue with an oil-based
economy. Of course, this completely ignores the problems of greenhouse gas
emissions, climate change, etc. and thus does not even begin to address all
relevant ecological issues.
Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA hawkman11@hotmail.com
>I advocate energy conservation all the way. I drive a VW Jetta diesel,
nd
>heat at home with a Monitor. Have for years. For me this is frugal, fu
,
>prudent, and patriotic. I have total dismay re American society's
>prodigality with fuel.
>
>Having said that, I believe"fossil" fuel remains an unproven hypothesis
or
>many forms of hydrocarbon, including petroleum and much (not all) methan
.
>They may not be biogenic in origin, although access to them is still a h
ge
>and costly issue. This hypothesis is presented in the late Thomas Gold'
>"The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Copernicus Press, 2000?). Planetary science
as
>found hydrocarbons to be widespread in the universe. This was dramatica
ly
>demonstrated during the recent Titan moon landing.
>
>Since price is predicated on scarcity, oil merchants might well prefer t
at
>we ignore this hypothesis. As I understand it, we don't really know at
>this
>point in our scientific understanding.
>
> PAUL SPITZER Trappe,
D
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:27:28 +0000
From: stan moore <hawkman11@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: peak oil issue -- ex. use of ethanol as "renewable" energy source
One proposed solution to the peak oil problem, as well as greenhouse gas
issues, is the proposed use of ethanol as a renewable fuel. Ecologists are
already aware, I am sure of many ecological complications (negatives) of
large-scale monoculture crop production (such as corn) in terms of topsoil
loss, migration of agricultural chemicals and residues into groundwater,
loss of wildlife habitat, etc. But a professor at UC Berkeley is claiming
that the complete cycle of ethanol production actually uses as much as six
times more petroleum energy that it produces!
Below is a recent story on this from the San Francisco Chronicle. Notice
that those who stand to benefit financially from the ethanol "solution" tend
to have a different perspective than those who do not -- a typical example,
I believe, of short-term thinking based on self-interest:
UC scientist says ethanol uses more energy than it makes
A lot of fossil fuels go into producing the gas substitute
Elizabeth Svoboda, Special to The Chronicle
Monday, June 27, 2005
Ethanol, touted as an alternative fuel of the future, may eat up far more
energy during its creation than it winds up giving back, according to
research by a UC Berkeley scientist that raises questions about the nation's
move toward its widespread use.
A clean-burning fuel produced from renewable crops like corn and sugarcane,
ethanol has long been a cornerstone of some national lawmakers' efforts to
clear the air and curb dependence on foreign oil. California residents use
close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.
But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC
Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times
more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually
contains.
The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily
outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek
believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel
consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice
of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it
is a waste of money.
"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to
produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn
uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case.
Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."
Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began
two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar
calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.
Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels
and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce
fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater,
they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is
consumed in the process of making it.
Surprised at the results, Patzek began an exhaustive analysis of his own --
one that painted an even bleaker picture of the ethanol industry's long-
term sustainability.
"Taking grain apart, fermenting it, distilling it and extruding it uses a
lot of fossil energy," he said. "We are grasping at the solution that is by
far the least efficient."
Patzek's report also highlights the potential environmental hazards of
ethanol production.
"When you dump nitrogen fertilizer on corn fields, it runs away as surface
water, into the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico," he said.
The excess nitrogen introduced into the water causes out-of-control algae
growth, creating an oxygen-poor "dead zone" where other marine plants and
animals cannot survive. And while ethanol produces fewer carbon monoxide
emissions than regular gasoline, some researchers have found that ethanol
releases high levels of nitrogen oxide, one of the principal ingredients of
smog, when burned.
Ethanol has long been touted not just for its promise as a renewable fuel,
but for its usefulness as a gasoline additive. Fossil fuels blended with it
produce fewer carbon monoxide emissions than regular gasoline and have a
higher octane rating, meaning they burn more evenly and are less likely to
cause engine knocking. While most gasoline sold in the United States now
contains approximately 5 percent ethanol, some cars -- such as the Ford
Explorer and Chevy Silverado -- can run on fuel blends containing up to 85
percent.
Though his work has been vetted by several peer-reviewed scientific
journals, Patzek has had to deflect criticism from a variety of sources.
David Morris, an economist and vice president of the Minneapolis-based
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has attacked the Berkeley professor's
analysis because he says it is based on farming and production practices
that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
"His figures (regarding energy consumed in fertilizer production) are
accurate for older nitrogen fertilizer plants, but newer plants use only
half the energy of those that were built 35 years ago," he said. He also
cited the increasing popularity of no-till farming methods, which can reduce
a corn farm's diesel usage by 75 percent. "With hydrogen fuel, people are
willing to say, '25 years from now it will be good.' Why can't we also be
forward-looking when it comes to ethanol?"
Hosein Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has
also cracked down on Patzek's energy calculations.
"It's true that the original ethanol plants in the 1970s went bankrupt. But
Patzek doesn't consider the impact new, more efficient production
technologies have had on the ethanol industry," he said.
Shapouri's most recent analysis, which the USDA published in 2004, comes to
the exact opposite conclusion of Patzek's: Ethanol, he said, has a positive
energy balance, containing 67 percent more energy than is used to
manufacture it. Optimistic that the process will become even more efficient
in the future, he pointed out that scientists are experimenting with using
alternative sources like solid waste, grass and wood to make ethanol. If
successful on a large scale, these techniques could drastically reduce the
amount of fossil fuel needed for ethanol production.
Other contributors to the debate argue that ethanol's net energy balance
should not be the sole consideration when policymakers are evaluating its
usefulness -- factors like the fuel's portability and lower carbon monoxide
emissions need to be considered as well.
"So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced?"
reads an editorial in the Offgrid Online energy newsletter. "Since we are
after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it."
Cornell University ecology Professor David Pimentel, however, sides with
Patzek, calling production of ethanol "subsidized food burning."
"The USDA isn't looking at factors like the energy it takes to maintain farm
machinery and irrigate fields in their analysis," he said, adding that the
agency's ethanol report contains overly optimistic assumptions about the
efficiency of farming practices. "The bottom line is that we're using far
more energy in making ethanol than we're getting out."
Patzek thinks lawmakers and environmental activists need to push ethanol
aside and concentrate on more sustainable solutions like improving the
efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars or harnessing solar energy
for use in transport. If they don't, he predicts economics will eventually
force the issue.
"If government funds become short, subsidies for fuels will be looked at
very carefully," he said. "When they are, there's no way ethanol production
can survive."
submitted by Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA hawkman11@hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:26:53 +0100
From: Val Kapos <Val.Kapos@UNEP-WCMC.ORG>
Subject: POSTDOC: DEMOGRAPHIC MODELLING OF FOREST PROCESSES
Please respond to the contact points given below and not to me.
POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE IN DEMOGRAPHIC MODELLING OF FOREST
PROCESSES
We have a post-doctoral position available from November 2005 to work
with Dr David Coomes, in collaboration with Drs Richard Duncan and Susan
Wiser (Lincoln University and Landcare Research, New Zealand) and Dr
Maria Uriarte (Columbia University, New York), on a project examining
the demographics of New Zealand tree species. The project aims to
address key questions in forest ecology (including how the importance of
inter-specific competition varies along environmental gradients and the
role of infrequent disturbance in community dynamics and forest
composition) by statistically analysing a long-term dataset containing
information on the growth, recruitment and mortality of about 500,000
tagged trees in c. 1,500 plots spread throughout New Zealand's natural
forests. Since this extensive dataset combines long-term data on tree
demography with a wide geographical coverage, this project offers a
unique opportunity to further our understanding of the spatial and
temporal drivers of demographic processes in forests.
We are looking for someone with a PhD in either ecology or demography
with excellent statistical modelling skills who is highly proficient in
a command-line based statistical package such as Splus, R or SAS.
Experience in spatial modelling of forest community dynamics would be an
advantage. The work will be based predominantly in Cambridge, but with
several months in New Zealand and some time at Columbia University.
This appointment, which is funded by the NERC, is available for up to 2
years and nine months.
Salary range: £19,460 - £29,127 per annum, depending on qualifications
and experience.
Further details are available from David Coomes (
David.Coomes@plantsci.cam.ac.uk ). Applications, including a copy of
a CV and the names and addresses of three referees, should be emailed to
helen.scott@plantci.cam.ac.uk. Please put the words "Post-doc with David
Coomes" in the header.
Closing date for applications: 29 July 2005
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:36:01 -0400
From: Hardin Waddle <hardin_waddle@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Masters Level Biologist Job
Biologist for Amphibian and Reptile Studies in Southwest Florida
The Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of
Florida Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center is currently seeking
a full time scientist for research projects on amphibians and reptiles in
southwest Florida. Applicant must be proficient in data management and
analysis, possess a M.S. degree in Ecology or a related field, and be
familiar with herpetofauna of south Florida. The projects will include a
study on community dynamics of the amphibian assemblage in southwest
Florida and a radiotelemetry study of movements of American alligators in
cypress swamps. Duties will include assisting with research design,
conducting field research, data management, data analysis, submitting
regular written progress reports, and supervision of a research
technician. Assisting with manuscript preparation is also required.
Ability to work under challenging field conditions is essential.
Applicants with demonstrated written and analytical skills preferred.
This position will be based at Big Cypress National Preserve near Naples,
FL. Annual salary of $28,000^Ö34,000 depending on qualifications with
availability of benefits upon successful evaluation. Position available
immediately and open until filled. To apply, please send resume and
letter of interest to (E-mail preferred):
Hardin Waddle
US Geological Survey / University of Florida
hardin_waddle@usgs.gov
Big Cypress National Preserve
33100 Tamiami Trail
Ochopee, FL 34141
For more information about our research program please visit
http://crocdoc.ifas.ufl.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:24:38 -0400
From: Joshua Walters <the_floater@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Conservation Program Bias?
I'm hoping the ECOLOG community can shed some light on an issue I've been
contemplating recently: the prevalence of biases in the development of
conservation programs.
Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally, commercially,
or for subsistence).
For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups could
influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding programs.
Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of their target
species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is primarily of
large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and commercial
fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated by larger
individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature individuals
(i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic salmon or jacks in
Pacific salmon).
In essence, user group concerns may bias conservation efforts away from
protecting the entire population equally. Thus, attention and resources
may be shifted away from 'pure' conservation issues such as protecting the
diversity of genotypes and/or phenotypes found in the natural population.
If anyone can recall examples of this type of bias in a conservation
program, please contact me. Published accounts are preferred, but even
anecdotal evidence will be very much appreciated.
Thanks for your time and contributions in advance,
Josh Walters
Josh Walters
MSc Candidate
University of Toronto
Department of Zoology
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:46:32 -0400
From: "lindsay@britishecologicalsociety.org"
<lindsay@BRITISHECOLOGICALSOCIETY.ORG>
Subject: papers 'in press' at Journal of ecology
Issue 93(4) has just been published. Many of the papers listed below are
already available in our 'online early' section at
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jec
Issue 93(5) (September-October 2005) Probable contents
MECHANISMS CONTROLLING FOREST COMPOSITION
Seed limitation in a Panamanian forest
Jens-Christian Svenning, S. Joseph Wright
Mesoscale distribution patterns of Amazonian understorey herbs in relation
to topography, soil and watersheds
Flįvia R.C. Costa, William E. Magnusson
Soil-related performance variation and species' distribution patterns in a
Bornean rain forest
Sabrina E. Russo, Stuart J. Davies, David A. King, Sylvester Tan
Soil feedback and pathogen activity in Prunus serotina throughout its
native range
Kurt O. Reinhart, Alejandro A. Royo, Wim H. Van der Putten, Keith Clay
Establishment of an emerging generalist pathogen in redwood forest
communities
Patricia E Maloney, Shannon C Lynch, Sarah F Kane, Camille E Jensen, David
M Rizzo
The tension between dispersal and persistence regulates the current
distribution of rare paleo-endemic rainforest flora: a case study.
Maurizio Rossetto, Robert M Kooyman
The hare, the tortoise, and the crocodile: the ecology of angiosperm
dominance, conifer persistence, and fern filtering
David A Coomes, Robert B Allen, Warren A Bentley, Larry E Burrows, Charlie
D. Canham, Laura Fagan, David A Wardle, Elaine F Wright
TREELINES
Rapid responses of high-mountain vegetation to early-Holocene environmental
changes in the Swiss Alps
Willy Tinner, Petra Kaltenrieder
Interactions among treeline conifers: Differential effects of pine on
spruce and larch
Stefan Dullinger, Thomas Dirnböck, Roland Köck, Eduard Hochbichler,
Thorsten Englisch, Norbert Sauberer, Georg Grabherr
COMPETITION AND FACILITATION
Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in
Arabidopsis thaliana
James F Cahill, Steven W Kembel, Danny J Gustafson
Effects of competition, resource availability and invertebrates on tree
seedling establishment
Brenton M Ladd, Jose M Facelli
Plant interactions govern population dynamics in a semiarid plant community
Cristina Armas, Francisco I Pugnaire
HERBIVORY AND GRAZING
Manipulation of nutrients and grazing levels on heather moorland: changes
in Calluna dominance and consequences for community composition
Susan E Hartley, Ruth J Mitchell
Are grazing increaser species better tolerators than decreasers?: an
experimental assessment of defoliation tolerance in eight British grassland
species
Ek del-Val, Michael J. Crawley
MODELLING SEED DISPERSAL
A mechanistic model for secondary seed dispersal by wind and its
experimental validation
Frank M. Schurr, William J. Bond, Guy F. Midgley, Steven I. Higgins
Effects of long-distance dispersal for metapopulation survival and genetic
structure at ecological time and spatial scales Gil Bohrer, Ran Nathan,
Sergei Volis
---------
Papers 'in press' for issue 93(6) (December 2005) and part of issue 94(1)
(January 2006)
ESSAY REVIEW Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman
Joseph M Craine
Invasion impacts diversity through altered community dynamics
Kathryn A Yurkonis, Scott J Meiners, Wachholder E Brent
Longevity of Experimentally Buried Seed in Vaccinium : The Relationship to
Climate, Reproductive Factors and Natural Seed Banks
Nicholas M Hill, Sam P VanderKloet
Self organisation in raised bog patterning: the origin of microtope
zonation and mesotope diversity
John Couwenberg, Hans Joosten
Plant traits and local extinctions in natural grasslands along an urban ^Ö
rural gradient
Nicholas S. G. Williams, Mark J McDonnell, John W Morgan, Michael A McCarthy
Evolutionary advantages of mast seeding in Fagus crenata
Hirokazu Kon, Takashi Noda, Kazuhiko Terazawa, Hiromasa Koyama, Michiyasu
Yasaka
Seed mass, seedling size and neotropical tree seedling establishment
Christopher Baraloto, Deborah E. Goldberg, Pierre-Michel Forget
Differential tree mortality in response to severe drought: Evidence for
long-term vegetation shifts
Rebecca C Mueller, Crescent M Scudder, Marianne E Porter, Robert T Trotter
III, Gehring A Catherine, Thomas G Whitham
Dual role for an allelochemical: (±)-catechin from Centaurea maculosa root
exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment
Laura G. Perry, Giles C. Thelen, Wendy M. Ridenour, Tiffany L. Weir, Ragan
M. Callaway, Mark W. Paschke, Jorge M. Vivanco
Winners and losers in herbaceous plant communities: insights from foliar
carbon isotope composition in monocultures and mixtures
Ari Jumpponen, Christa C.P. Mulder, Kerstin Huss-Danell, Peter Högberg
Microhabitats shift rank in suitability for seedling establishment
depending on habitat type and climate
Lorena Gómez-Aparicio, Jose Marķa Gómez, Regino Zamora
Successional dynamics of woody seedling communities in wet tropical
secondary forests
Robert S. Capers, Robin L. Chazdon, Alvaro Redondo Brenes, Braulio Vilchez
Alvarado
Reduced reproductive success and offspring survival in fragmented
populations of the forest herb Phyteuma spicatum
Annette Kolb
Experimental invasion by legumes reveals non-random assembly rules in
grassland communities
Lindsay A Turnbull, Sabine Rahm, Oksana Baudois, Susann Eichenberger-Glinz,
Luca Wacker, Bernhard Schmid
Vascular epiphyte distribution patterns: explaining the mid-elevation
richness peak
Catherine L Cardelus, Robert K Colwell
Estimating variability in seedling survival from count data
Brian Beckage, Michael Lavine, James S Clark
Wildfire effects on plant species richness at multiple spatial scales in
forest communities of the southern Appalachians
Matthew J. Reilly, Michael C. Wimberly, Claire L. Newell
Gene diversity in a fragmented population of Briza media grassland
continuity in a landscape context
Honor C Prentice, Mikael Lönn, Gabrielle Rosquist, Margareta Ihse, Merit
Kindström
Disentangling above- and below-ground competition between lianas and trees
in a tropical forest
Stefan A Schnitzer, Mirjam E Kuzee, Frans Bongers
Hydrochory increases riparian plant species richness: a comparison between
a free-flowing and a regulated river
Roland Jansson, Ursula Zinko, David M Merritt, Christer Nilsson
Inducible responses in the brown seaweed Ecklonia cava: the role of grazer
identity and season
Markus Molis, Jochen Körner, Young-Wook Ko, Jeong Ha Kim, Martin Wahl
--------------------------------------------------------
*** web submission now available for all BES journals***
See http://britishecologicalsociety.manuscriptcentral.com
Message sent by
Lindsay Haddon
Managing Editor, Journal of Ecology
British Ecological Society,
26, Blades Court, Deodar Road
Putney, London SW15 2NU, UK. e-mail:Lindsay@BritishEcologicalSociety.org
phone: 0208-871-9797
fax: 0208-871-9779
The British Ecological Society is a limited company, registered in England
No. 1522897 and a Registered Charity No. 281213. VAT registration No
199992863. Information and advice given to members or others by or on
behalf of the Society is given on the basis that no liability attaches to
the Society, its Council Members, Officers or representatives in respect
thereof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:38:31 -0400
From: James Milks <james.milks@WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Tracking down a citation
Dear all,
I'm looking for a copy of the following paper that was used as a
reference in an article I'm reading:
Boggess, W. R. 1956. Weekly diameter growth of shortleaf pine and
white oak as related to soil moisture. Soc. Am. Forestry Proc., p 83-89.
I've already searched several databases (JSTOR, Google Scholar, Science
Citations Expanded, etc) and have come up empty. Thanks for any tips on
where to find it.
Sincerely,
Jim Milks
Graduate Student
Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program
Wright State University
136 Biological Sciences
3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy
Dayton, OH 45435
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:09:23 -0700
From: Lisa Crampton <crampton@UNR.NEVADA.EDU>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
I asked a friend who was a graduate student in Transportation Technology and
Policy at UC Davis what he thought about this issue. Also, on a personal
note, he chose several years ago to buy a diesel vehicle after considering
this issue long and hard. Here is his reply:
-------
definitely tough choices, and I am not sure how one
would assess different tradeoffs - and different
people will emphasize different things. CO has big
global warming effects, PM has more immediate asthma
and breathing effects, etc. I think all of the
studies that are done have a bias and depending on
whether you are comparing state of the art vs typical
and other variables. in my opinion there is no clear
winner.
one major plus for diesels, and was my reason for
buying one, is that you can use WVO and/or biodiesel.
so your fuel is no longer directly connected to the
middle east (or other politically sensitive source; ed's note)
here is a webpage that has an article by a UCD
professor and recent UCD graduate who now works for
union of concerned scientists.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm
----
Hope this helps,
Cali
On 7/14/05 5:23 AM, "Steve I Van Tuyl" <svantuyl@FS.FED.US> wrote:
> I have been wondering for a while now whether a high miles per gallon
> diesel vehicle actually has a smaller emissions 'footprint' than a lowe
> mpg non-diesel vehicle. I suppose this comes from my perception that
> diesel vehicles tend to have higher NOx and particulate emissions than
> standard petrol vehicles. Is there someone out there can provide me wi
h
> some resources that show a good comparison of diesel versus non-diesel
> emissions of all sorts? Also, any ideas on how to incorporate all of t
ose
> different types of emissions into a single score would be
> appreciated...difficult, it would seem...
>
>
> Steve Van Tuyl
> US Forest Service
> Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>
>
> On 7/13/2005 Paul Spitzer wrote:
>
> I advocate energy conservation all the way. I drive a VW Jetta diesel,
and
>
> heat at home with a Monitor. Have for years. For me this is frugal, f
n,
> prudent, and patriotic. I have total dismay re American society's
> prodigality with fuel.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:47:47 -0700
From: Liz Gerson <e.gerson@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
You can compare "annual greenhouse gas emissions" and "EPA air pollution
scores" for particular vehicles using www.fueleconomy.gov . The pollution
score incorporates 5 classes of pollutants (see below) into a single score.
Also, the website also allows you some leeway to customize your fuel economy
estimates (and subsequently your greenhouse gas emissions estimates)
according to your driving habits. If you poke around this website a bit
you'll find there's a surprising amount of variability in emissions within a
single make, model-year. For example, some 2004 Subaru Forester's get
pretty good mileage and have fairly low greenhouse gas and other pollutant
emissions, while other Forester's (notably the premium fuel options) rate
rather poorly.
Anyway, back to your diesel v. non-diesel comparison question: using EPA's
standard calculations, e.g., a 2004 VW Jetta (1.9L, 5sp.manual) running on
diesel emits 5.1 tons greenhouse gases annually, compared to 7.2 tons for a
2004 VW Jetta (2.0L, 5 sp. manual) running on regular gasoline. BUT, the
EPA pollution score for the diesel is only 1, compared to 6--9 for the
regular gas engine. Pollution scores are on 10-point scale with 10 being
the least polluting (details below). It is interesting to note also that
the 2004 diesel Jetta cannot be sold in CA, MA, ME, NY, or VT because of
emissions requirements.
So, is the higher MPG diesel vehicle better??
Pick your poison!
========================[from fuel economy website]:
EPA Air Pollution Scores
The Air Pollution Score reflects pollutants that cause health problems and
smog. The score is from 0 to 10, where 10 is best. The air pollutants
coming out of a vehicle's tailpipe are tightly controlled by EPA's emissions
regulations. Thanks to efforts from both EPA (on the regulation side) and
the automotive industry (on the compliance side), today's vehicles are
significantly cleaner than in the past. Technology advances such as
catalytic converters, exhaust gas recirculation and electronic fuel controls
have made tighter pollution control from vehicles possible. However,
emission levels will still vary between vehicles due to differences in
emissions standards. Emissions performance should be an important
environmental consideration when buying a vehicle.
NOx=Oxides of Nitrogen: Compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; they
combine with hydrocarbons in the sunlight to form smog
NMOG=Non-Methane Organic Compounds: Compounds containing carbon; they
combine with NOx in the sunlight to form smog
CO=Carbon Monoxide: A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas
PM=Particulate Matter: Tiny particles of solid matter that lodge in the
lungs and deposit on buildings
HCHO=Formaldehyde: A lung irritant and carcinogen
========================
*****************************************
Elizabeth A. Gerson, d.b.a.
ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH SUPPORT SERVICES
Livermore, CA 94550-3532
Email: ERSS-Gerson@comcast.net
*****************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Steve I Van Tuyl
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:24 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
I have been wondering for a while now whether a high miles per gallon
diesel vehicle actually has a smaller emissions 'footprint' than a lower
mpg non-diesel vehicle. I suppose this comes from my perception that
diesel vehicles tend to have higher NOx and particulate emissions than
standard petrol vehicles. Is there someone out there can provide me with
some resources that show a good comparison of diesel versus non-diesel
emissions of all sorts? Also, any ideas on how to incorporate all of those
different types of emissions into a single score would be
appreciated...difficult, it would seem...
Steve Van Tuyl
US Forest Service
Philadelphia, PA
On 7/13/2005 Paul Spitzer wrote:
I advocate energy conservation all the way. I drive a VW Jetta diesel, and
heat at home with a Monitor. Have for years. For me this is frugal, fun,
prudent, and patriotic. I have total dismay re American society's
prodigality with fuel.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:10:16 -0700
From: Mark Frey <runcator@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Ceanothus
I^Ņm trying to assess the risk of using Ceanothus
griseus and C. gloriosus in the landscaped areas of
the Presidio of San Francisco. C. thyrsiflorus is
native and the other two are native to CA. The genus
is reported as promiscuous by the CNPS website and I
know that all three species grow in similar habitats.
Anyone have any info? I'm particularly concerned about
the inter-breeding potential.
Thanks,
Mark Frey
Presidio Trust
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Tue Jul 19 17:33:37 2005
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:00:02 -0400
From: ECOLOG-L automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 15 Jul 2005 to 16 Jul 2005 (#2005-175)
There are 4 messages totalling 328 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. High MPG Diesel vehicle is better? (3)
2. Conservation Program Bias?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:30:14 -0500
From: "D. Liane Cochran-Stafira" <cochran@SXU.EDU>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
We recently purchased a 2005 Prius, and am delighted with it. The gas
mileage is incredible, and the emissions data are very impressive. My
daily driving is roughly 50% highway and 50% city, so we do see the benefit
of the electric motor on a daily basis. I use this as my field vehicle,
and it has as much room (or possibly more) as our '96 Ford Escort wagon
(which btw is still running with 200K miles and still gets 30+ mpg). The
price on the Prius was much lower than I expected, and several thousand
less than the Passat gas or diesel wagons. It is hard to find a Prius on
the lot though. We were fortunate, and only had to wait a couple of
weeks. If you are choosy about option packages or colors the wait can be
months in our area.
Liane
At 03:09 PM 7/15/2005, Henshel, Diane S. wrote:
>
***************************
Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Xavier University
3700 West 103rd Street
Chicago, Illinois 60655
phone: 773-298-3514
fax: 773-298-3536
email: cochran@sxu.edu
http://www.sxu.edu/~cochran/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:06:54 -0400
From: "E. Ann Poole" <eann@GSINET.NET>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
Hi, John,
Several municipalities in New England are running fleet passenger vehicles
and buses on biodiesel refined from used restaurant oil. The availability
of fuel has in turn resulted in hot demand for diesel VW's in these parts
especially as the price of petroleum based diesel has risen.
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=1
Ann
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
E. Ann Poole, Ecological & Environmental Consultancy
PO Box 890, 741 Beard Rd, Hillsborough, NH 03244
<eann@gsinet.net> 603.478.1178 www.eannpoole.com
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Korfmacher" <korfmach@UNR.EDU>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
> Diesels suffer a bad reputation in the US, partly because of the
early-80's
> experiment by General Motors in passenger-car diesels (they were awful;
> diesel engine technology has come a very long way since then!) and part
y
> because of the cardinal sin of producing visible emissions. However, I
m
a
> proponent of diesels for four reasons:
> 1) Energy use: Efficiency is as much as 60% higher versus a gasoline
engine.
> Additionally, fossil diesel fuel requires marginally less energy to ref
ne
> than gasoline, and most diesel engines can be run on biodiesel or even
> filtered, used vegetable oil with no ill effects (see
> http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/165.pdf for more on this topi
).
> Consider also the energy and resources consumed in producing new vehicl
s:
a
> more-durable diesel has to be replaced less frequently.
> 2) Emissions: As stated in previous posts, greenhouse gas emissions fro
> diesels are somewhat lower than that of gasoline engines. Granted,
> particulate emissions are much higher. Spending a day in a congested
> European city, (where diesels are much more common than in the US) migh
> convince you that broad use of diesels here might not be such a good id
a.
I
> don't think, though, that the long-term ecological effects of particula
es
> are as serious as those of greenhouse emissions.
> 3) Economics: Despite recently higher prices for diesel fuel, it's stil
> much cheaper to operate a diesel, both in terms of reduced fuel costs a
d
> reduced maintenance requirements of a diesel. More importantly...diesel
are
> much more durable than gasoline engines. One reason why long-haul truck
,
> locomotives, etc. use diesel is that they last forever. I don't have an
> exact numbers on it, but I'd guess that life-cycle costs for a diesel
would
> have to be much lower than an equivalen gasoline-powered vehicle.
> 4) Personal experience: I have driven a '98 VW turbodiesel for 225,000
m,
> averaging 19 km/liter (45 mpg) and confess to being fond of the car--it
s
> practically bulletproof. The exhaust doesn't even smell that bad!
>
> John Korfmacher
> Physical Scientist
> Fort Collins, CO USA
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:23:07 +1000
From: Tony Dell <anthony.dell@JCU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
warren, josh, et al,
this recent paper might be of interest.
Nature 436, 192 (14 July 2005)
Top predators and biodiversity
Fabrizio Sergio1,2, Ian Newton3 and Luigi Marchesi2
The charisma of top vertebrate predators is often used by
conservationists as a lever for financial support1, 2, to raise
environmental awareness2, 3 and in planning protected areas4, 5, 6 - a
strategy that has been criticized3, 5, 7. Here we use information
collected from five raptor species that differ widely in their diet and
habitat associations to show that sites occupied by these predators are
consistently associated with high biodiversity. The biodiversity at
these sites is more extensive than it is at sites selected at random, or
at sites occupied by species from lower down the trophic pyramid
(insectivorous or herbivorous species, for example). Our results
indicate that conservation focusing on top predators can be ecologically
justified because it delivers broader biodiversity benefits.
__________________________________________
tony dell
department of zoology and tropical ecology
james cook university
townsville, qld 4811 australia
ph 07 47815769 or 47814520
fax 07 47251570
email anthony.dell@jcu.edu.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney
Sent: Saturday, 16 July 2005 2:49 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Conservation Program Bias?
If I understand your question right, Josh, the answer is pretty simple:
most conservation programs have inherent bias. We (meaning
conservationists and our stakeholders) favor charismatic large mammal
species over "chiggy-rats." We favor game and song birds over
"creepy-crawlers." We favor salmon and trout over lampreys and
"minners." We manage for trophies, whether they be deer with big racks
or large trout; and then we also try to manage for high recreational
returns in terms of fish per angler or hunter success rates. Part of the
reason, of course, is that fee-paying recreationists support the bulk of
our fish and wildlife conservation efforts.
If this is what you are asking about, I could provide more detailed
specifics and examples.
Warren Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Joshua Walters
Sent: Thursday, 14 July, 2005 13:25
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Conservation Program Bias?
I'm hoping the ECOLOG community can shed some light on an issue I've
been contemplating recently: the prevalence of biases in the development
of conservation programs.
Specifically, I am looking for any anecdotes and/or published work that
documents a conservation program that has incorporated concerns and/or
priorities that have to do with exploitation (recreationally,
commercially, or for subsistence).
For example, the concerns of hunters, fisherman, or other user groups
could influence the selection of broodstock for captive breeding
programs. Hunters would not only like to see a healthy population of
their target species, but may also prefer if the recovered population is
primarily of large, 'trophy' individuals. Similarly, recreational and
commercial fisherman may prefer to see adult populations to be dominated
by larger individuals and contain relatively few, if any, small mature
individuals (i.e. minimize the number of precocious parr in Atlantic
salmon or jacks in Pacific salmon).
In essence, user group concerns may bias conservation efforts away from
protecting the entire population equally. Thus, attention and resources
may be shifted away from 'pure' conservation issues such as protecting
the diversity of genotypes and/or phenotypes found in the natural
population.
If anyone can recall examples of this type of bias in a conservation
program, please contact me. Published accounts are preferred, but even
anecdotal evidence will be very much appreciated.
Thanks for your time and contributions in advance,
Josh Walters
Josh Walters
MSc Candidate
University of Toronto
Department of Zoology
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:34:41 -0400
From: David Bryant <dbryant1@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
Yes, hybrids (civic and prius) have much lower emissions than either
traditional gas or diesel engines. The Civic is rated as an
ultra-low emission vehicle by CARB and the Prius gets the Super-ultra
low emissions. Diesels generally have much higher NOX emissions than
gas while both the Civic and Prius emit less than 10% of the NOX
created even by gas engines.
Having said that, Diesel cars/trucks running on bio-diesel fuels will
be on par with gas powered vehicle of the same size. The jury is
still out on whether bio-diesel will have a net reduction in C output
as considerably more fuel is required for production of vegetable oil
than diesel fuel.
At 04:10 PM 7/15/2005, you wrote:
>How about the hybrid cars like the Prius? Don't they have even
>lower emissions?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on
> behalf of John Korfmacher
> Sent: Fri 7/15/2005 12:11 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
>
>
>
> Diesels suffer a bad reputation in the US, partly because
> of the early-80's
> experiment by General Motors in passenger-car diesels (they
> were awful;
> diesel engine technology has come a very long way since
> then!) and partly
> because of the cardinal sin of producing visible emissions.
> However, I am a
> proponent of diesels for four reasons:
> 1) Energy use: Efficiency is as much as 60% higher versus a
> gasoline engine.
> Additionally, fossil diesel fuel requires marginally less
> energy to refine
> than gasoline, and most diesel engines can be run on
> biodiesel or even
> filtered, used vegetable oil with no ill effects (see
> http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/165.pdf for more
> on this topic).
> Consider also the energy and resources consumed in
> producing new vehicles: a
> more-durable diesel has to be replaced less frequently.
> 2) Emissions: As stated in previous posts, greenhouse gas
> emissions from
> diesels are somewhat lower than that of gasoline engines. Grant
d,
> particulate emissions are much higher. Spending a day in a cong
sted
> European city, (where diesels are much more common than in
> the US) might
> convince you that broad use of diesels here might not be
> such a good idea. I
> don't think, though, that the long-term ecological effects
> of particulates
> are as serious as those of greenhouse emissions.
> 3) Economics: Despite recently higher prices for diesel
> fuel, it's still
> much cheaper to operate a diesel, both in terms of reduced
> fuel costs and
> reduced maintenance requirements of a diesel. More
> importantly...diesels are
> much more durable than gasoline engines. One reason why
> long-haul trucks,
> locomotives, etc. use diesel is that they last forever. I
> don't have any
> exact numbers on it, but I'd guess that life-cycle costs
> for a diesel would
> have to be much lower than an equivalen gasoline-powered vehicl
.
> 4) Personal experience: I have driven a '98 VW turbodiesel
> for 225,000 km,
> averaging 19 km/liter (45 mpg) and confess to being fond of
> the car--it's
> practically bulletproof. The exhaust doesn't even smell that ba
!
>
> John Korfmacher
> Physical Scientist
> Fort Collins, CO USA
>
David M. Bryant Ph.D.
School of Life Sciences
LSE 604
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-4501
dbryant1@imap2.asu.edu
978-697-6123 (cell)
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 15 Jul 2005 to 16 Jul 2005 (#2005-175)
***************************************************************
From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Tue Jul 19 17:33:42 2005
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400
From: ECOLOG-L automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 16 Jul 2005 to 17 Jul 2005 (#2005-176)
There are 5 messages totalling 337 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
2. Ramon Margalef Prize in Ecology and Environmental Sciences
3. Resident Lecturer in Resource Management
4. Resident Faculty, Environmental Policy and Socio-Economics
5. LAST SUMMER SEASON MAPPING GPS WORKSHOPS: AUG 17-19, 22-24, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:15:12 -0500
From: Erik Ness <erikness@TDS.NET>
Subject: Re: High MPG Diesel vehicle is better?
At 8:23 AM -0400 7/14/05, Steve I Van Tuyl wrote:
>Is there someone out there can provide me with
>some resources that show a good comparison of diesel versus non-diesel
>emissions of all sorts?
There is a lot of good information here at the Laboratory For Energy
and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
http://lfee.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl
For a more general synthesis of the issues you can follow "Stuck In
Reverse" link below in my signature.
Regards,
Erik Ness
--
###########################
Erik Ness <erikness@tds.net> 608-242-7604
Stuck in Reverse: http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05win/detroit1.asp
Moving Mountains:
http://www.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/2004_winter/mountains.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:57:58 -0600
From: David Inouye <inouye@MAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Ramon Margalef Prize in Ecology and Environmental Sciences
The Presidency of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia has decided
to honour the memory of Ramon Margalef by establishing an
international prize in his name. The Ramon Margalef Prize in Ecology
and Environmental Sciences aims to recognize individuals from around
the world for distinguished work in the field of ecology or the
environmental sciences.
The major objective of the prize is the recognition of an exceptional
scientific career or a discovery in the field of ecology or other
environmental science that has contributed to a significant progress
in scientific knowledge or to the development of theoretical
approaches for the sound management of natural resources, land use, or the s
a.
Professor Ramon Margalef i Lopez (1919-2004) was one of the leading
scholars and thinkers in the ecological sciences, and throughout his
life undertook an intellectual contribution of the highest order. In
a very unfavourable socioeconomic context, in post-war Spain and
under the Franco regime, Margalef was able to place ecological
research and thinking in Catalonia at the highest international level
and thus create a true school of thought. In fact, the personality of
Ramon Margalef has contributed decisively to the development of
modern ecological science, to the point of his being considered one
of the preeminent figures in the scientific world, in great measure
due to his interpretation of natural systems in terms of information theory.
Contact Address: Technical Secretariat of the Ramon Margalef Prize
Department of the Presidency of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia
Placa de Sant Jaume, 4
Deadline: July 31, 2005
Amount Note: The prize is worth EUR 100,000.
Eligibility: The prize will be awarded to living individuals, to
legal entities, or to groups from anywhere in the world.
Candidatures must be submitted by qualified representatives of
university institutions or research centres, by persons who have been
awarded the prize in previous years, or by persons who have formerly
been members of the jury of the prize.
<http://www.gencat.net/premiramonmargalef/eng/>http://www.gencat.net/p
emiramonmargalef/eng/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:39:35 -0400
From: Recruiting <jobs@FIELDSTUDIES.ORG>
Subject: Resident Lecturer in Resource Management
School for Field Studies
The Center for Coastal Studies
Puerto San Carlos, Baja California Sur, Mexico
=20
Position Summary:=20
=20
The purpose of this residential position is to:
Teach Principles of Resource Management course and one third of the
summer course. Course based on critical, local environmental issues and
problem-based interdisciplinary curriculum.=20
Lead designated components of the Center's Five-Year Research Plan,
including overseeing and advising the student directed research projects
that relate to these research areas.
=20
Minimum Qualifications:
=20
Ph.D. and University-level teaching experience in Environmental Science
or Natural Resource Management with an emphasis on coastal/marine
issues.=20
Field research experience in coastal resource management, fisheries
management, monitoring marine resources, and/or aquaculture.=20
Success in research publications.=20
Proven grant writing success.=20
Experience living and working in Mexico with Spanish language skills.=20
Experience with Global Information Systems.=20
Residential student group management and risk management experience
desirable.
=20
Other Expectations:
=20
Demonstrated ability to work as a team member and independently.=20
Demonstrated commitment to environmental issues.=20
Willingness to work flexible hours and live on site at the field station
with a small team of permanent staff, groups of US undergraduate
students and visiting researchers or programs.=20
Participation in all center activities.=20
Represent SFS at local and international conferences.
=20
Start Date: September 2005
=20
Salary: Salary ranges from $26,000 US to $29,000 US depending on
experience and qualifications, plus excellent benefits and on-site room
and board.
=20
TO APPLY: Email a cover letter and resume outlining relevant
experiences to: The School for Field Studies at jobs@fieldstudies.org.
Faxes and hard copy will not be accepted. EOE.
=20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:41:23 -0400
From: Recruiting <jobs@FIELDSTUDIES.ORG>
Subject: Resident Faculty, Environmental Policy and Socio-Economics
School for Field Studies
Position Announcement
The Center for Marine Resource Studies
Turks & Caicos Islands, B.W.I.
=20
=20
Position Summary:=20
The core functions of this residential field position are to:=20
Teach Environmental Policy and Socio-Economics course and one third of
the summer courses based on critical, local environmental issues and
problem-based interdisciplinary curriculum.
Lead designated components of the Center's Five-Year Research Plan and
as part of this, oversee and advise the student directed research
projects that relate to these research lines.
=20
Minimum Qualifications:
Ph.D. and University-level teaching experience (minimum two years
part-time) in Environmental policy, legislation, marine resource
conservation, or socio-economic issues.
Extensive field research experience, preferably in the fields of Marine
policy formulation and analysis, tourism development, and/or Marine
Protected Area Planning & Management.
Demonstrated ability to work as part of an interdisciplinary teaching
and research team.
Good track record of research publications.
Proved track record of grant writing success.
Current first aid certification.
=20
Preferred Qualifications:
Demonstrate experience working in collaboration with small island state
governments.
Demonstrated commitment to environmental issues.
Residential student group management and risk management experience
highly desirable.
Certified SCUBA diver.
DAN O2 provider certification
Small boat handling experience
=20
Other Expectations:
Willingness to work flexible hours and live on site at the field station
with a small team of permanent staff, groups of US undergraduate
students and visiting researchers or programs, and participate in all
center activities.
Represent SFS at local and international conferences.
=20
Start Date: September 1, 2005
=20
Salary: Salary ranges from $26,000 US to $29,000 US depending on
experience and qualifications, plus excellent benefits and on-site room
and board.
=20
TO APPLY: Email a cover letter and resume outlining relevant
experiences to: The School for Field Studies at jobs@fieldstudies.org
<javascript:noSpamMailLink('jobs','fieldstudies','org','');> . Faxes
and hard copy will not be accepted. EOE.
=20
=20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:55:48 -0500
From: Cary <cchev@MWSC.EDU>
Subject: LAST SUMMER SEASON MAPPING GPS WORKSHOPS: AUG 17-19, 22-24, 2005
Ladies and gentlemen:
FIRST, SORRY FOR ANY DOUBLE POSTING. IT WAS NOT INTENDED!
Field season is in full swing!
I invite you to join me in either of our last Certified User Mapping GPS
Workshops of the 2005 summer season!:
17-19 AUG 2005. MAX SEATING: 10
22-24 AUG 2005. MAX SEATING: 10
Each workshop is a total immersion 3-day workshop titled: INTRODUCTION TO
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS FOR GIS MAPPING AND NAVIGATION. The workshop is
limited to a maximum of 10 participants to insure quality instruction and
lots of personal attention!
These courses generally fill quickly, so if you are interested, please
reserve your place as soon as possible. You may secure your reservation
prior to payment, but arrangements for payment must be made by the time the
session begins.
SCOPE OF COURSE: This is an intro course to mapping GPS with no prior
experience in GPS required or expected. But you'll definitely be a GIS
mapping-level GPS "power tool" when you're finished with this workshop. We
will train on Trimble Geo CE-XT mobile GIS GPS units with Terrasync Pro,
and we will use Pathfinder Office integration software. We will also learn
to use bluetooth wireless communication, WAAS real-time differential, Coast
Guard Beacon real-time differential. These courses are taught by an
experienced manufacturer Certified Trainer (me; Trimble Navigation, LTD).
For details including course content and instructions on how to register, I
invite you to visit the course website at:
http://www.mwsc.edu/conteduc/gps.html
If you would like to discuss the nature of these workshops, or if I can be
of service in any way, feel free to contact me at your convenience!
I also do on-site training. Call me if you would like to discuss this optio
.
Cary D. Chevalier, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Missouri Western State College
4525 Downs Dr.
St. Joseph, MO 64507
Ph: 816.271.4252
Fax: 816.271.4252
Email: cchev@missouriwestern.edu
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 16 Jul 2005 to 17 Jul 2005 (#2005-176)
***************************************************************
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
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