Scenario A: 25% chance of success
Scenario B: 50% chance of success
Scenario C: 75% chance of success
Scenario D: 100% chance of success

Charismatic groups of animals and plants often are proposed as sentinels of environmental status and trends. Nevertheless, many claims that a certain taxonomic group can provide more-general information on environmental quality are not evaluated critically. To address several of the many definitions of indicator species, we used butterflies to explore in some detail the attributes that affect implementation of indicators generically. There probably are few individual species, or sets of species, that can serve as scientifically valid, cost-effective measures of the status or trend of an environmental phenomenon that is difficult to measure directly. Nevertheless, there are species with distributions, abundances, or demographic characteristics that are responsive to known environmental changes. In this context, single or multiple species can serve as indicators when targets are defined explicitly, ecological relationships between the target and the putative indicators are well understood, and data are sufficient to differentiate between deterministic and stochastic responses. Although these situations exist, they are less common than might be apparent from an extensive and often confounded literature on indicators. Instead, the public appeal of charismatic groups may be driving much of their acclaim as indicators. The same taxon may not be appropriate for marketing a general conservation mission and for drawing strong inference about specific environmental changes. To provide insights into the progress of conservation efforts, it is essential to identify scientific and practical criteria for selection and application of indicators and then to examine whether a given taxonomic group meets those criteria.

This work had two main objectives: (1) to compare priority sites proposed by the Chilean commission for the environment in a politically driven process to the results of alternative systematic conservation planning scenarios; and (2) to compare the efficacy of systematic conservation planning based on different types of conservation targets (forest types and bird species) and minimum area thresholds. To address these issues, we used vegetation cover as well as field data on forest birds in central Chile. Bird species distributions were modeled using a variety of climatic and environmental layers, allowing for the integration of environmental heterogeneity into the planning process. We then ran several conservation planning scenarios considering conservation targets based on vegetation types alone, birds alone, or a combination of vegetation and birds. Collectively these results show that conservation planning results differ significantly when considering birds or vegetation types, and that minimum area requirements for each conservation feature has a great influence on the final results. (emphasis added)

• 5 in favor of retaining the original schedule: assign on 11/11, due on 11/18
• 10 in favor of delaying: assign on 11/16, due on 11/30
• 3 either way

• Assign Project #3 on 11/16
• Regular due date: 11/30
• For those who are concerned about the lack of non-holiday weekend time: due date 12/7, but only if pre-arranged and only if (a) there aren't too many who want the later date &/or (b) those who want the later date don't mind not getting comments back until after they've handed in their final project.

1. Is the selected historical target an appropriate one? Is this asking if a historical target is an appropriate method of the possible coarse filter strategies, or is it asking specifically about the choice of 1000 years pre-European settlement as a baseline for the specific types of ecological sites that should be present and their associated disturbance regimes?

I had in mind the specific historical target mentioned in the plan, i.e., the 1000 years prior to European settlement. If you wanted to argue against that target you could argue that either (a) the specific time period that was chosen isn't the best one (you'd need to explain what time period you think would be better and why) or (b) it doesn't make any sense to pick a particular historical period as a target for rmanagememnt (you'd need to clarify whether you're making that argument for any management plan or just for this one, in particular).

2. What criteria can be used to determine whether the target is appropriate? Again, is this referring to the criteria for the selection of the historical target method from different types of coarse filter strategies, or why 1000 years pre-European settlement was chosen as the specific target for disturbance regimes and ecological sites?

   The answer to this question depends on the tack you're taking on the first question. If you're going to argue that historical targets are never appropriate, for example, you'll need to explain what criteria you use in making that judgment. If, on the other hand, you argue that they picked the wrong historical target, you'll need to explain what criteria would have led you to pick a different one. If you think they got things just right, you'll need to explain what criteria led you to that judgment.
   

STORRS, Conn. - A symposium entitled "Indigenous People and The Environment"
is being held at 7 p.m. on Oct. 28, in the Branford House on UConn's Avery Point
campus. This event is part of a year-long Learning Community initiative called
"Looking for Indians: Indigenous People and the Environment," coordinated by
Campus Director of Academic Services Susan Lyons and Assistant Professor of
Anthropology Margaret Bruchac.

The Learning Community is centered on two INTD (inter-disciplinary) courses for
freshmen and sophomores taught by Lyons and Bruchac. In addition, twenty faculty
from thirteen disciplines have devised new teaching units to assist students in exploring
Native American issues from various disciplinary perspectives. For more information,
visit: http://www.averypoint.uconn.edu/avery_point/learning_community.htm

Bruchac serves as the Coordinator of Native American Studies at the Avery Point
Campus. For the symposium, she will be joined by panelists Sandy Grande (Associate
Professor of Education at Connecticut College), William Green (Director of the Logan
Museum), Syma Ebbin (Research Coordinator for the Connecticut Sea Grant Program
at Avery Point), Jason Mancini (Senior Researcher at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum
and Research Center), and Greg Stone (Adjunct Professor of Journalism at Avery Point).
The panelists will discuss how professionals from different backgrounds and academic
disciplines and Native American peoples approach these topics through a variety of
methods, and how conceptions of natural resources and sustainability and territory
shape our understandings of indigenous people, past and present.

For a map and directions, visit: http://averypoint.uconn.edu/avery_point/direct.htm

For more information:
Margaret Bruchac, (860) 405-9059, Margaret.bruchac@uconn.edu

On 3 October, a few weeks after Montana opened its first legal wolf-hunting season in decades, a hunter killed the alpha female of Yellowstone Park's Cottonwood Pack, whose behavior, travels, life history, and genealogy had been studied in detail by scientists for years. Her death, and that of five other pack members also shot outside Yellowstone, has irrevocably changed what had been a unique long-term study, the researchers say.