October 2010 Archives

A center for biodiversity in Germany

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
From today's Nature:

The [Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft] (DFG), [Germany's] main grant agency, is soliciting proposals from universities to host a biodiversity centre that could create up to 80 postdoc and PhD positions, 6 professorships and 10 group-leader positions. The DFG will make its selection by April 2012; the host university will build a new centre or expand an existing lab. Proposals must be submitted by 14 January 2011, and applicants must show how they will collect and analyse data and set up a study programme. The DFG will provide between €4 million (US$5.5 million) and €7 million a year for up to 12 years. The successful applicant must have expertise in biodiversity theory and modelling, ecology, evolution and the science of conservation.

A center like this will make tremendous contributions to our understanding of the origins, maintenance, and consequences of biodiversity. According to the DFG's description, the new research center will focus on:

  • Synthesis, theory development and modelling in biodiversity research,
  • ecological research with focus on ecological interactions,
  • evolution and adaptation of organisms and biocoenoses,
  • scientific fundamentals of conservation.
It may be the largest center devoted to integrative biodiversity research in the world. I hope the leaders of the new center will encourage integration of their research with research conducted by smaller teams of investigators in the U.S. supported by the new National Science Foundation initiative, Dimensions of Biodiversity.1

Environmental cyberinfrastructure at UConn

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
environmental-cyberinfrastructure.pngLast spring John Silander, Janine Caira, Dave Wagner, Mike Willig, and I answered an internal call for proposals from Jeremy Teitelbaum, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, for awards from his "Fund for innovative education in science". We (mostly John, Janine, and Dave) have developed a series of five modules dealing with GIS, climate modeling, biodiversity modeling, specimen databases, and online databases. The modules are described at http://cyberinfrastructure.uconn.edu/index.html, and more resources will become available in the spring.

GDP doesn't measure everything important

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
When setting any number of different government policies, politicians focus on how different policies will affect economic growth. "Cap and trade will cost us too many jobs and hamper economic growth too greatly compared to any benefit it might produce," some opponents argue.1 "Protecting endangered species is well and good, but we can't protect them at the expense of economic growth," some opponents of the Endangered Species Act would argue.

But what if they're measuring growth wrong? What if they're using the wrong yardstick?

Economic growth is conventionally measured as a change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced by a country in a given year. So an economy is growing if it's producing more goods and services now than it did in the past. Sound good? Well, consider what John Palmer has to say:

This wider measure of economic progress would highlight the enormous investment opportunities which exist to strengthen our environmental and social infrastructures and offer a more constructive way to achieve long-term reduction in budget deficits. Widening the basic measure of economic activity by prioritising human and environmental imperatives could transform the terms of the debate on how to respond to the economic crisis.
The "wider alternative" of which he speaks is the TEEB approach to valuing natural capital I mentioned a few days ago. If changes in natural capital are reported along with changes in GDP, maybe we'd have a different way of measuring growth, and maybe cap and trade wouldn't look so bad.2

Progress in Nagoya?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
The early reports are not promising. Here's how Richard Black BBC describes it for the BBC:

Conservation groups have expressed concern that a major UN conference on nature protection is stalling, with some governments accused of holding the process hostage to their own interest.
The draft agreement calls for a 100-fold increase in international financing for biodiversity financing, with the funds coming primarily from industrialized countries, since that's where the money is, and spent mostly in developing countries, since that's where much of the biodiversity is.

So what's the hitch?

Western governments are reportedly focused on establishing tough targets for biodiversity protection, while governments of developing countries are more focused on ensuring equitable access to genetic resources. Developing want a fair share of profits from products derived from their genetic resources. The BBC report doesn't make this explicit, but I'm sure the "hitch" has to do with determining what a "fair share" is.


USA Science & Engineering Festival

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
Share |


What: Grand finale of the USA Science & Engineering Festival
When: Today and tomorrow
Where: National Mall between 1st and 7th Streets; Freedom Plaza, Pennsylvania Ave. NW between 12th and 14th Streets; Woodrow Wilson Plaza, Mellon Auditorium, National Museum of Natural History ; Freedom Plaza, Pennsylvania Ave. NW between 12th and 14th Streets; Woodrow Wilson Plaza, Mellon Auditorium, National Museum of Natural History

Admission is free, and you'll find exhibits, performances, and stage shows from more than 100 different scientific organizations and companies. The festival provides a web site with maps and a schedule to plan your day. So if you're anywhere close to the National Mall today or tomorrow and looking for something fun and interesting to do -- stop by.


Nagoya and the economics of biodiversity

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
teeb-mainstreaming.pngI mentioned a few days ago that the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity opened its tenth meeting, COP10, in Nagoya, Japan on Monday. Yesterday The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative released its report, Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. In a press release announcing publication of the report, Pavan Sukhdev said:

TEEB has documented not only the multi-trillion dollar importance to the global economy of the natural world, but the kinds of policy-shifts and smart market mechanisms that can embed fresh thinking in a world beset by a rising raft of multiple challenges. The good news is that many communities and countries are already seeing the potential of incorporating the value of nature into decision-making.
You can retrieve the full report from the TEEB web site. If you'd like a shorter overview, Juliet Eilperin has a nice story in yesterday's Washington Post. She notes that both India and Brazil announced yesterday that they would use the TEEB approach to estimate the value of their natural capital and use those estimates when setting national policy.

Happy World Statistics Day!

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
wsd_eng_thumb.png
What? You thought there were just lies, damn lies, and statistics? Well, no. If you've ever taken a modern prescription drug, clinicians used statistics to determine whether it's safe and effective. If you've ever had a cost of living increase in your salary that's based on the consumer price index, statistics were responsible for your raise. If you follow polls suggesting that Democrats may lose a lot of seats in the House of Representatives this fall, you're paying attention to statistics.

Any time you're paying attention to numbers intended to tell us something about our world, you're paying attention to statistics.1

And today is the first ever World Statistics Day. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations even released a statement about World Statistics day, and there are events planned in countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. This morning there is a breakfast meeting in the Rayburn Gold Room (2168 Rayburn House Office Building) in Washington, DC in which a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, the current director of the Census Bureau, and the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis will offer remarks on the importance of statistics in public policy. The event is co-sponsored by a long list of professional societies and organizations.

So the next time someone tells you there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, think again before you agree.

Conference of the Parties

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
Share |
This morning the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) opened in Nagoya, Japan.1 If COP doesn't ring a bell, perhaps the Convention on Biological Diversity will.

The Convention was opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio "Earth Summit"). It remained open for signature until 4 June 1993, by which time it had received 168 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993, which was 90 days after the 30th ratification. The first session of the Conference of the Parties was scheduled for 28 November - 9 December 1994 in the Bahamas. (http://www.cbd.int/history)

One topic of discussion in Nagoya will be the 2010 target.

In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed themselves to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. (emphasis in original; http://www.cbd.int/2010-target/)
It's generally agreed that the Parties have not met the target. There's a lot of work left to do. For example, when Radio 4 asked Kate Rawles, a lecturer at the University of Cumbria, what can be done to raise awareness of biodiversity issues, she started her reply with an anecdote:

Recently, members of the public were asked what biodiversity is. The most common answer was "some kind of washing powder".
Washing powder. If people are that disconnected from their natural environment, is it any wonder we have trouble convincing them that they depend on biodiversity and that losing it will impoverish their lives? Conservation International has set laudable goals for the Nagoya conference, but unless we connect people to the environment, the goals they set will never be achieved.


More on our Dimensions of Biodiversity grant

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
National Science Foundation (NSF) Logo, reprod...

Image via Wikipedia

I mentioned last week that Carl Schlichting, Cindi Jones, John Silander, Justin Borevitz, Andrew Latimer, and I were awarded a grant through the new Dimensions of Biodiversity program at the National Science Foundation. Yesterday, there was a nice piece in UConn Today about it, including nice photos of a king protea and a succulent pelargonium that Carl took.

English communication for scientists

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
I just noticed that Scitable at  natureEducation has made a new resource on science communication available: English communication for scientists.

English Communication for Scientists is a brief guide on how to communicate more effectively in English, no matter how much previous experience you have. Although it was developed with non-native speakers of English in mind, it should prove useful for native speakers, too. Organized as six self-contained units, it will help you understand basic communication strategies and address various audiences (Unit 1); design and draft not only scientific papers (Unit 2) but also e-mail, résumés, and short reports (Unit 3); structure, support, and deliver oral presentations (Unit 4); create and present posters, chair sessions, and participate in panels (Unit 5); and prepare, run, and evaluate classroom sessions (Unit 6). Created by seasoned communicators, English Communication for Scientists provides no-nonsense, directly applicable guidelines, illustrated with examples of written documents, oral presentations, and more. Improving your scientific communication is only a click away: start today!

Notice that it "was developed with non-native speakers of English in mind", but it does look as if it could be useful for any of us who communicate science in English. Notice also that the type of communication being discussed is communication with other scientists, not with the general public.

Montana and wolves

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
Gray wolf

Image via Wikipedia

Judge Donald Molloy decided in August that the northern Rockies population segment of the gray wolf should not have been removed from the endangered species list. That decision removed the authority that officials in Idaho and Montana had been given to manage wolf populations in their states.1 Officials in both states are appealing the decision.

Montana officials are also challenging the decision in many other ways. They have urged the federal Department of the Interior to join their appeal (or file a separate one) and filed a permit to conduct a statewide conservation hunt (that was denied). But Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks (FWP) clearly wants to re-instate hunting.

FWP  Commission granted approval on 10-7-10 to an FWP proposal under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act to lethally remove wolves in West Fork Bitterroot because of unacceptable impacts to the local elk population. ("FWP outlines wolf relisting efforts, project 2010 population", KPAX.com, Missoula, Montana, 8 October 2010).
The proposal approved by the Montana FWP Commission would take place under a different section of the Endangered Species Act than the permit that was denied. Public comment will be accepted until 10 November, and the Commission may submit a new proposal for a more limited conservation hunt if it approves the proposal after considering public comment.

According to figures from Montana FWP there are about 400 wolves in 96 packs and 32 breeding pairs in the state now. Last year there were about 524 wolves in 101 packs and 37 breeding pairs.

Good news on California condors

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Share |
A Californian Condor in flight, photographed i...

Image via Wikipedia

In 1982, there were only 22 wild California condors in California. That's when the Fish & Wildlife Service started a captive breeding program intended to increase the size of the population. By 1987 all wild condors had been captured and placed into the breeding program. None remained in the wild. Releases began in California in 1991 and near the Grand Canyon in 1996.1 (More details available, as always, at Wikipedia).

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced that there are now 100 California condors in the wild in California (posting on Greenspace). A hundred birds in the wild isn't enough to call the population secure, but it is an encouraging sign. We can bring species back from the brink of extinction -- if we are willing to invest in the effort.

Wolves, hunting, and the Endangered Species Act

| No Comments | 2 TrackBacks
Share |
Last June Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court of Montana heard arguments in a case challenging his decision last fall that allowed wolf hunts to go forward in Idaho and Montana. In August he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling "that the FWS erred when it allowed Montana and Idaho independent management authority, but kept Wyoming's wolves under federal control." His decision, predictably, caused a lot of anger:

Toby Bridges of the anti-wolf group Lobo Watch predicted people would be pulling triggers.

"If Molloy, or any of these environmental organizations, think for a second that the decision of someone who is totally out of touch with modern wildlife management will keep hunters from killing wolves this fall and winter, they need to think again," Bridges wrote in an e-mail message. "In fact, the anger provoked by this ego-driven judge will more than likely result in the death of far more wolves than the quotas established by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Any wolf that now steps out in front of any hunter this fall is very likely to be shot ... and left to rot." ("Molloy wolf decision brings cheers, frustration, howls of protest", Rob Cheney, The Missoulian, 6 August 2010)

Last Friday, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks joined an appeal of Molloy's decision filed by the state of Idaho and two farm Bureaus. A variety of bills have also been introduced in Congress to overturn the ruling. One of them was introduced six days before Judge Molloy made his ruling ("Wolf opponents broaden tactics", Katherine Wutz, Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, 6 October 2010). It's too late for legislative action this year, but don't be surprised if these bills come back in the next Congress, and don't be surprised if an appeals court accepts the case.

Some good news to share

| 2 Comments | 2 TrackBacks
Share |

protea-by-jane-carlson.jpg

Image of Protea in the fynbos by Jane Carlson

Last March the National Science Foundation announced a new program, Dimensions of Biodiversity. Quoting from the program's synopsis:

The Dimensions of Biodiversity initiative seeks to characterize biodiversity on Earth by using integrative, innovative approaches to fill rapidly the most substantial gaps in our understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. This campaign will take a broad view of biodiversity, and in its initial phase will focus on the integration of genetic, taxonomic, and functional dimensions of biodiversity. Successful proposals should integrate these three dimensions to understand interactions and feedbacks among them. While this focus complements several core NSF programs, it differs by requiring that multiple dimensions of biodiversity be addressed simultaneously, in innovative or novel ways, to understand the roles of biodiversity in critical ecological and evolutionary processes..


Why do I mention this program seven months later? Because I am lucky enough to be part of one of the first projects funded. Here's the press release from NSF announcing the first set of projects funded under the program.

Our project focuses on the genus Protea and the genus Pelargonium. It builds on work that my colleagues Cindi Jones, Carl Schlichting, and I have been involved in over the last decade or more. Working with Justin Borevitz (University of Chicago) and Andrew Latimer (University of California -- Davis) we will determine the genetic basis of trait differences in the two genera and explore the relationship between diversity in our groups and the diversity and stability of the surrounding community. You can find more information about our project on a wiki that we set up last weekend.

 Subscribe in a reader

Pages

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Nature Blog Network
Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2010 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2010 is the previous archive.

November 2010 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.