 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
An important, but depressing, paper appears in the 21 October 2005 issue of Science. (It just arrived in my mailbox today.) Greg Asne and colleagues report that selective logging in Brazilian forest has resulted in the loss of between 60% and 123% more forest than previously though.
Notes and readings for ecosystem management are now posted.
On Monday we'll finish our survey of invasive species first, then we'll start on ecosystem management. I probably will not cover everything that's in the notes. I would like you to do one thing (in addition to writing your paper for Monday): Read the papers by Goldstein, Risser, and Walker. I'll take a vote on whether you'd prefer to spend a little more time than planned on ecosystem management (and discuss the arguments presented in these papers), or move immediately on to landscape change.
I've added the missing figure to the notes, so if you want to print the notes, go ahead. I won't be making further changes (this year).
I just finished posting the notes to the web site, but there's one figure I intended to include that I didn't have an electronic version of at home. If you're planning to print the notes and you'd like a copy of the figure, I'll have it posted before class tomorrow morning. I can't promise that it will be much before class, but it will be before class. In the meantime, enjoy what you have. Good night.
Oh, I almost forgot. I added one more paper, the one by Pimentel and colleagues, to the reading list. You'll want to take a look at it too...in your abundant spare time.
I just posted the readings associated with tomorrow's lecture. The notes will be available today. It may be after 9:00pm tonight before they're available, but they will be there. Check back or check your e-mail for a notification.
Project #2 is now posted. We'll talk about it a little at the beginning of class tomorrow. If you have time, take a quick look at it, so you can ask questions as necessary.
I've updated the lecture schedule. The dates now correspond to the lecture topics associated with them. I've condensed the two lectures on principles of conservation reserve design to one to make up for lost time, and I've also modified the dates associated with Project #2 (as discussed in class Wednesday) and the due date of Project #3.
I will post Project #2 some time tomorrow. If my day goes well, it will be posted in early afternoon. If it doesn't go well, it won't be until late tomorrow evening.
I was not able to carve out enough time on Monday to get Project #2 prepared. I'll do it over the weekend and hand it out Monday. Later this afternoon I'll revise the course schedule on the web site to reflect both the change in Project #2 and the shift in lecture schedule that happened because of our good discussion on Monday.
I finished grading papers for Project #1 a few minutes ago. I'll hand them back on Monday, and we'll probably spend 10-15 minutes talking about some of the ideas that emerged in the papers.
I'll explain the numerical scheme I use for grading again tomorrow, but for reference purposes, here it is:
95-100: Almost perfect. Strongly argued paper that identifies a single key issue and analyzes it. Brings appropriate evidence to bear. Acknowledges limitations/tradeoffs as appropriate. My draw on specific biological examples.
90-94: Excellent. Well argued paper. Falls short of being “almost perfect” in one or two ways, typically by not recognizing some important limitations/tradeoffs, not being quite as clear in issue identification, or getting a minor point wrong.
85-89: Very good. A well argued paper. Falls short of being “excellent” (a) by falling short three or four ways, (b) falling short in one or two ways more seriously, or (c) being wrong or mistaken about a point that is important, but not central.
80-84: Good. A paper whose argument is weaker than it could be. Either relevant evidence is not brought forward as effectively, the paper diverges from the assigned topic to areas that are related but less relevant, or significant mistakes about key points are made.
75-79: Competent. A paper whose argument is weak, combining two of the faults that would make a paper “good” or having one fault in a more serious form.
70-74: Acceptable. A paper that combines three or more faults that would make a paper “good” or having two in a more serious form.
<70: Fortunately, students in this course have (so far) always performed acceptably or better. I haven't had to woory about scores in this range.
End of semester averages will be translated to letter grades as follows:
95-100: A+
90-94: A
85-89: A-
80-84: B+
75-79: B
70-74: B-
<70: I do not expect to have to assign letter grades for scores in this range.
I've now posted notes on habitat fragmentation. (Phew, now I can get back to grading.) There are also links to a couple of relevant papers. I will probably add a couple more next week.
Notes for next Monday's lecture on species interactions are now available. What this means, of course, is that I'm spending more time working on lecture notes than on grading papers. It's not very likely that I'll have them finished by tomorrow, but I'll do my best to have them back by next Monday.
It's been pointed out to me that what I wrote last night about Project #2 and due dates is confusing. It's confusing because I was confused. Ignore what I wrote, and look at the syllabus.
The plan for Project #2 stands. I'll hand it out on the 19th of October, and it will be due on the 26th of October.
As promised (threatened?), the notes and readings for Wednesday's lecture on diversity and stability in ecosystem functioning are now posted. If you're reading this on Saturday night, (a) your life is as boring as mine and (b) you don't have to worry about another set of notes appearing tonight. It's possible that another set will appear sometime tomorrow, but don't hold your breath.
Notes for Monday's lecture are now available. Since the next couple of weeks are going to be unusually busy for me, I'm going to try to get notes for another or two posted this weekend (probably those for 10/12 and 10/19). I'll keep you posted.
Tomorrow I'll be devoting myself to grading papers. Chances are slim that I'll have them done by Monday, but I'll try. And I'll either have them back by Wednesday, when I hand out Project #2, or give you a week from when I hand them back before Project #2 is due. You'll know in class on Wednesday.
The readings for Monday's lecture have been posted. Please skim the papers by Myers et al. and Kareiva & Marvier if you have a chance. There are some interesting differences, and it would be fun to discuss them on Monday.
I hope to have the notes posted by this evening. As always, I'll post a notice when they're available.
The 30 September issue of Science, which just arrived in my mailbox today, has an interesting article on reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act entitled What's wrong with the Endangered Species Act? I'm still thinking about Project #2, which I'll hand out on Wednesday (after spending my weekend grading Project #1), so there are no guarantees, but don't be surprised if it involves something drawn from or inspired by this piece.
I just saw the 29 September issue of Nature. It includes an article we'll read late in the semester, but it's short and interesting, so if you'd like to read it now... Read “Dollars and sense”.
I've posted the notes for tomorrow's lecture on the bay checkerspot butterfly. (This time you may actually have a chance to look at them before class.) We'll finish our discussion of the metapopulation model for the spotted owl first. If you have any questions about what we've done so far with the spotted owl, we'll take however much time we need to deal with them. We're not in a hurry.
Notes on the northern spotted owl are now available. As with last Wednesday's lecture, there are more mathematical details in the notes than we'll cover in lecture and more than I expect you to understand. I provide them so that you can see the kind of detail that is needed to make reasonable quantitative projections of population dynamics. One of the things we'll discuss is how useful it is to try to build these kinds of models for management purposes, so think about the pros and cons as you review the models.
Creative Commons
License.