Volume 86, Number 1, January 2005
Photo: Cover Photo: An Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo), the largest owl in the world,
has killed an adult Black Kite (Milvus migrans), a medium-sized diurnal raptor.
Proximity to the nest site of an Eagle Owl increases the probability of predation
for Black Kites, and is an integral component of territory quality for this
species. Kites have a very limited time to assess and choose a territory when
they return from spring migration, a problem that is exacerbated for inexperienced
individuals occupying a territory for the first time. Such individuals may resort
to cues such as the presence, abundance, and breeding performance of conspecifics
in previous years. The photograph was taken as part of a study conducted in
the Italian Alps by F. Sergio and V. Penteriani, Public information and
territory establishment in a loosely colonial raptor, to be published
in Ecology Volume 86(2), February 2005. Click on the photo for more photographs
by this author and colleagues of Black Kites and Eagle Owls.
Table of Contents (click on a title to view that section)
The Crossroads of the Society
Request for Student Award Judges
Student Awards for Excellence in Ecology
Mutivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANCO
Applied Plant Conservation Training Program
Environmental Banking and Beyond
Biodiversity Leadership and Emerging Leader Awards
Resolution of Respect: Ramon Margalef
Minutes of the 31 July1 August Governing Board Meeting
Minutes of the 1 August Council Meeting
Minutes of the 6 August Governing Board Meeting
2004 Edward S. Deevey Award
The importance of conspecific cues for territory establishments F. Sergio, V. Penteriani, and C. Scandolara
Grazing effects F. Louault
The Problem with the Messages of PlantHerbivore Interactions in Ecological Textbooks. N. Stamp
A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 15: The Precocious Origins of Human and Animal Demography and Statistics in the 1600s. F. N. Egerton
Peer Review Statement from Public Affairs Office
Improving the Presentation of Results of Logistic Regression with R. M. de la Cruz Rot
Focus on Field Stations
University of Michigan Biological Station (UMBS)
Ecological Education: K12
Ecological Education for Schools K12
Society Section and Chapter News
Applied Ecology Section Newsletter
Canada Chapter Newsletter
Southeastern Chapter Newsletter
Society Summit on Data Sharing and Archiving Policies. J. D. Baldwin and C. Duke
CALL FOR PAPERS
Instructions for Contributors
The BULLETIN OF THE ECOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICA (ISSN 0012-9623)
is published quarterly by the
Ecological Society of America, 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006.
It is available online only, free of charge, at http://www.esapubs.org/bulletin/current/current.htm.
Issues published prior to January 2004 are available through
of the Ecological Society of America, 1707 H Street, NW, Washington DC 20006
Phone (403) 220-7635, Fax (403) 289-9311,
Editor, Ecology 101
M. Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543
President-Elect: Nancy B. Grimm, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501
Past-President: William H. Schlesinger, School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Vice President for Science: Gus R. Shaver, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543
Vice President for Finance: Norman L. Christensen, School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Vice President for Public Affairs: Alison G. Power, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-2701
Vice President for Education and Human Resources: Carol A. Brewer, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-0001
Secretary: David W. Inouye, Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4415
Member-at-Large: Dee Boersma, Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1800
Member-at-Large: Shahid Naeem, Department of Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
Member-at-Large: Margaret A. Palmer, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-0001
The Ecological Society of
America was founded in 1915 for the purpose of unifying the sciences of
ecology, stimulating research in all aspects of the discipline, encouraging
communication among ecologists, and promoting the responsible application
of ecological data and principles to the solution of environmental problems.
Ecology is the scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships
between organisms and their past, present, and future environments. These
relationships include physiological responses of individuals, structure
and dynamics of populations, interactions among species, organization
of biological communities, and processing of energy and matter in ecosystems.
|Regular member:||Income level||Dues|
|Contact Member and Subscriber Services (see below)|
Applications $50.00 $40.00
Frontiers in Ecology Free to members
Ecological Archives Free
| I became a member of ESA
as a graduation gift from Dan Kozlowsky (A critical evaluation of
the trophic level concept. I. Ecological efficiencies. Ecology 49:4860,
1968 ). I had, since my freshman year at the University of Wisconsin,
been an avid reader of Ecology and Ecological Monographs. In fact every
Friday afternoon I would, as a treat, go to the library and take one or
two volumes and read the articles I felt were important. This, of course,
meant that as I worked my way through the volumes, I often went back to
volumes I had already looked at to reread articles whose value I now understood
I knew the Society mainly through its science journals. Consequently, when I received my first Bulletin, I realized that ESA really was a community of scholars. The Bulletin was at the time moving from being a vehicle to report the deadly boring minutes of Council meetings, the resolutions of respect, and the programs and abstracts of Annual Meetings, to having more general articles that discussed issues facing the Society that did not fit into the scholarly journals.
These changes increased in tempo in the 12 years Allen Solomon was Editor-in-Chief of the Bulletin. He instituted a large number of innovations that made the Bulletin more a must read by all members. However, Allens most important contribution will be seen as making the Bulletin electronic.
An electronic Bulletin has many interesting possibilities that the paper Bulletin did not have. We can put in more pictures, links can be made directly to meeting web sites, articles mentioned can be linked directly (in many cases), to computer programs and useful subroutines can be downloaded, PowerPoint material for lectures and seminars can be made available, even short videos can be incorporated. These technological opportunities should increase the Bulletins usefulness.
| However, technology will
not make the Bulletin necessary. If one reads the Visions
Committee report www.esa.org/ecovisions, one message runs
throughout. ESA must reach out to a wider audience. The Society actually
started doing this before the Visions Committee by developing a new journal,
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment under the founding
Editor-in-Chief, Sue Silver. Frontiers has clearly filled
an empty niche in both ESA and in wider ecology and environmental communities.
In this issue of the Bulletin, you will find several new columns. I have
asked Susan Barker and Charles Anderson to edit a column that will be
of use to teachers, with articles that will bridge the gap between research
in the science of ecology and the needs and concerns of teachers. This
will include how students learn and understand ecology. I would also like
to start a similar column directed at ecologists who are environmental
consultants. David Inouye will now be assisted by Sam Scheiner in editing
the Technological Tools column under its new name, Emerging Technologies.
This will help keep us up-to-date on areas not in our speciality. I have
also asked the International Section to increase our international coverage,
particularly of what other ecological societies are doing. Finally, I
am starting a column that gives background and commentary on significant,
recently published ecological science papers. Ecology is now such a diverse
and eclectic field it is difficult to understand the significance of developments
in all parts of the discipline. I hope that this feature will keep us
The Society owes Allen Solomon a large debt for his work for ESA over the last 12 years and for decades before. I have known Al since the 1970s, but I always remember him with a smile for a paper he gave at an Annual Meeting in the 1980s; the subject was the paleoecology of Lake Woebegone.
E. A. Johnson
REQUEST FOR STUDENT AWARD JUDGES
F. Buell Award
E. Lucy Braun Award
Judges are needed to evaluate candidates for the Murray F. Buell Award for the outstanding oral presentation by a student and the E. Lucy Braun Award for the outstanding poster presentation by a student at the Annual ESA Meeting at Montreal, Canada in 2005. We need to provide each candidate with at least four judges competent in the specific subject of the presentation. Each judge is asked to evaluate 35 papers and/or posters. Current graduate students are not eligible to judge. This is a great way to become involved in an important ESA activity. We desperately need your help!
Please complete and send this form by mail, fax, or e-mail to the Chair of the Student Awards Subcommittee: Christopher F. Sacchi, Department of Biology, Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA 19530 USA. Call (610) 683-4314; FAX: (610) 683-4854 or e-mail: email@example.com
If you have judged in the past several years, this information is on file. If you do not have to update your information, simply send me an e-mail message, Yes, I can judge this year.
Current mailing address _______________________________________________________________________________
June/July mailing address _____________________________________________________________________________
Current telephone Summer telephone ____________________________________________________________________
E-mail Fax __________________________________________________________________________________________
Year M.S. received Year Ph.D received ______________________________________
of expertise (check all that apply):
Discipline Research approach (please rank) Organisms
Botany Population ecology Vertebrates
Zoology Community ecology Types:
Microbiology Ecosystem ecology Invertebrates
Applied ecology Types:
Habitat Physiological ecology Plants
Soil Behavioral ecology Types:
Terrestrial Paleoecology Fungi
Freshwater Theoretical ecology Microbes
Marine Evolutionary ecology Types:
a few key words or phrases that describe your interests and expertise: _________________________
Back to Table of Contents
Murray F. Buell Award and E. Lucy Braun Award
F. Buell had a long and distinguished record of service and accomplishment
in the Ecological Society of America. Among other things, he ascribed great
importance to the participation of students in meetings and to excellence
in the presentation of papers. To honor his selfless dedication to the younger
generation of ecologists, the Murray F. Buell Award for Excellence in Ecology
is given to a student for the outstanding oral paper presented at the ESA
E. Lucy Braun, an eminent plant ecologist and one of the charter members of the Society, studied and mapped the deciduous forest regions of eastern North America and described them in her classic book, The Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. To honor her, the E. Lucy Braun Award for Excellence in Ecology is given to a student for the outstanding poster presentation at the ESA Annual Meeting.
A candidate for these awards must be an undergraduate, a graduate student, or a recent doctorate not more than 9 months past graduation at the time of the meeting. The paper or poster must be presented as part of the program sponsored by the Ecological Society of America, but the student need not be an ESA member. To be eligible for these awards the student must be the sole or senior author of the oral paper (Note: symposium talks are ineligible) or poster. Papers and posters will be judged on the significance of ideas, creativity, quality of methodology, validity of conclusions drawn from results, and clarity of presentation. While all students are encouraged to participate, winning papers and posters typically describe fully completed projects. The students selected for these awards will be announced in the ESA Bulletin following the Annual Meeting. A certificate and a check for $500 will be presented to each recipient at the next ESA Annual Meeting.
If you wish to be considered for either of these awards at the 2005 Annual Meeting, you must send the following to the Chair of the Student Awards Subcommittee: (1) the application form below, (2) a copy of your abstract, and (3) a 250-word or less description of why/how the research presented will advance the field of ecology. Because of the large number of applications for the Buell and Braun awards in recent years, applicants may be prescreened prior to the meeting, based on the quality of the abstract and this description of the significance of their research. The application form, abstract, and research justification must be sent by mail, fax, or email (e-mail is preferred; send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org) to the Chair of the Student Awards Subcommittee: Dr. Christopher F. Sacchi, Department of Biology, Kutztown University of PA, Kutztown, PA 19530 USA. If you have questions, write, call (610) 683-4314, fax (610) 683-4854, or email: email@example.com. You will be provided with suggestions for enhancing a paper or poster. The deadline for submission of form and abstract is 1 March 2005; applications sent after 1 March 2005 will not be considered. This submission is in addition to the regular abstract submission. Buell/Braun participants who fail to notify the B/B Chair by 1 May of withdrawal from the meeting will be ineligible, barring exceptional circumstances, for consideration in the future. Electronic versions of the Application Form are available on the ESA web site, or you can send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and request that an electronic version be sent to you as an attachment.
Application Form for Buell or Braun Award
Current Mailing Address____________________________________________________________________________
Current Telephone ________________________________________________________________________________
College/University Affiliation _______________________________________________________________________
Title of Presentation ______________________________________________________________________________
Presentation: Paper (Buell Award) ______ Poster (Braun Award) _______
the time of presentation I will be (check one):
______an undergraduate student ______a graduate student______a recent doctorate not more than 9 months past graduation
I will be the sole ____ /senior ____ author (check one) of the paper/poster.
Signed (electronic signatures are OK)________________________________________________________________
Please attach a copy of your abstract and 250word or less description of why/how the research presented will advance the field of ecology.
of Ecological Data using CANOCO
This course will be held 1930 July 2005 in
Ceske Budejovice in the Czech Republic. The course introduces modern
approaches to multivariate data analysis, with much time allocated to
practicals, where participants do work with their own data. In-depth
lectures and practicals are provided for the following topics:
Applied Plant Conservation Training Program
Denver Botanic Gardens and the United States Botanic
Garden announce a new Applied Plant Conservation Training Program coming
in June 2005. The program will feature seminars and workshops taught
in part by members of the Center for Plant Conservation, who join national
leaders in the fields of plant conservation, ecology, and botanic garden
management. The hands-on program explores the principles and techniques
used in research, documentation, study, conservation, and reintroduction
of threatened plants. A research internship will follow for selected
participants. Admission is limited and competitive with an application
deadline of 1 March 2005.
Eighth National Mitigation and Conservation Banking Conference: Environmental Banking and Beyond
The conference will be held 1821 April 2005
at Charlotte, North Carolina, and will offer sessions on emerging markets
(stream mitigation, conservation banking, multicredit banks, water quality
trading, agriculture), sessions on standards and sustainability, tracking
progress, case studies, sales and marketing, and more.
Resolution of Respect
Ramón Margalef, Professor Emeritus of Ecology at the University
of Barcelona, Spain, passed away on 23 May 2004, four days after his
85th birthday. His wife, María Mir, whom he had met at the
university and married in 1952, died suddenly on 30 May 2004, just
one week after her husband. They had four children. Ramón Margalef
was Spains most important ecologist, and one of the worlds
prominent limnologists, marine biologists, and theoretical ecologists
of the 20th century. He was a pioneer in his own right, and made outstanding
contributions to these and other fields (e.g., biogeography, geology,
animal behavior, human evolution, and human ecology), leaving us an
enormous body of scientific literature consisting of about 400 articles
and 20 books and monographs. Taken together, this formidable scientific
production laid the foundations of a comprehensive, coherent ecological
theory. His scientific ideas have had a significant influence on several
generations of ecologists, both through teaching (in Spain and elsewhere)
and scientific publication.
I thank Carlos M. Duarte, Xavier Ferrer, and Carlos Montes for assistance in locating biographical sources, X. Ferrer for supplying Margalefs photographs, and Cala Castellanos for suggestions.
Selected publications of Ramón Margalef
Margalef, R. 1957. La teoría
de la información en ecología. [Translated into English
and published in 1958 in General Systems 3:3671.] Memorias
de la Real Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona 32:373449.
Carlos M. Herrera
|Minutes of the ESA Governing Board
31 July1 August 2004
The 31 July1 August 2004 Governing Board meeting was attended by President Bill Schlesinger, Past-President Ann Bartuska, President-Elect Jerry Melillo, Members-at-Large Ed Johnson, Oswaldo Sala, and Margaret Palmer, Vice President for Science Jim Clark, Vice President for Education and Human Resources Carol Brewer, Vice President for Public Affairs Sonny Power, Secretary Jill Baron, and incoming board members Nancy Grimm (President-Elect), Gus Shaver (Vice President for Science), David Inouye (Secretary), Shahid Naeem and Dee Boersma (Members-at-Large). Vice President for Finance Norm Christensen was not present. ESA staff members present included Executive Director Katherine McCarter, Director for Public Affairs Nadine Lymn, Director of Finance Elizabeth Biggs, Director for Science Cliff Duke, Director for Education Jason Taylor, Managing Editor for Ecology and Ecological Applications David Baldwin, Editor-in-Chief for the ESA Bulletin Allen Solomon, Editor-in-Chief for Frontiers Sue Silver, and Associate Managing Editor David Gooding.
I. ROLL CALL
A. Adopt Agenda
1) The agenda was adopted
B. Ratification of Votes
1) Peer Review Statement
C. Adopt minutes from May 2004 GB meeting
Minutes unanimously approved, and thanks to David Inouye for serving as Secretary for the May meeting.
A. Report of the President
President Schlesinger reported he has had an easy job since May thanks to HQ staff.
B. Report of the Executive Director
1) Update: Portland will be the largest meeting ever. Abstracts will be available on CD only in future. Executive Director McCarter will be in Australia through August; Lymn will be Acting Executive Director. Several ESA staff are leaving, including Lori Hidinger and Maggie Smith. Applications for Smiths replacement are arriving.
a) Science Director Duke reported Karen Dalles,
from the National Parks Foundation, accepted the ESA offer to become
Science Program Manager, replacing Lori Hidinger.
3) Public Affairs
a) Local media are giving continuous coverage to
the ESA Annual Meeting, including the Oregonian newspaper and
Oregon Public Broadcasting.
a) Submissions to the journals are way up (10%
increase in 2003, almost 20% increase in submissions in 2004 to date).
The success is possibly related to the reduced turnaround time to
publication, the on-line submission capability, and calls for shorter
papers. Managing Editor Baldwin suggests this could provoke future
GB action to consider increasing page numbers or staff. Ecological
Archives increasingly publishes tables and appendices that help
authors reduce page length.
a) TIEE Volume 2 is now available.
a) ESA has more than 8000 members. An E-version
of the ESA membership database will be added, allowing members to
make their own updates and corrections, in 2004.
a) A bundled set of the Ethical Issues articles
in book form is now available.
III. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
A. Visions Priorities Updates
1) Rapid Response Teams (RRTs)
A list of possible teams and team members was distributed and commented upon. The teams themselves should be organized creatively so that potential users will be able to readily find pertinent topics. Keywords, grand challenges, and a cross-referenced index were all suggested as ways to advertise the appropriate topics. Issues of biotech, GMOs, nanotechnology, ecosystem services, environmental credit trading are currently topics of interest; that kind of list needs to be cross-referenced with the teams. It was suggested that no RRT member serve on more than one team; ESA should take advantage of having 8000 members. Team members should be drawn from more than just academia, and could serve a fixed term, or be called on some number of times before rotating off. Team members will get Leopold-like training and other opportunities to reward their effort. The Public Affairs Office will need to advertise to policy makers that a one-phone-call request for information to ESA gets a quick response. ESA will use RRTs in a proactive mode as well as reacting to requests. Future plans may include linking the RRTs with other societies whose topics overlap.
2) International efforts
A meeting on the Ecology and Globalization will be held in Merida, Mexico, 912 January 2006, for 300500 participants. Suggestions for financial sponsors include OAS, corporations with interest in globalization, TNC, Conservation International, USDA. Note that the 2005 Montreal meeting is also international.
3) Frontiers international expansion
Submissions from international scientists come primarily from talking with authors at conferences. Requests for manuscripts should be solicited from the Chinese Ecological Society, Sino-Eco Society, and the new Mexico Chapter.
a) The Federation of the Americas welcomes Bolivia
as a new member. There will be a Federation activity in Montreal in
2005. ESA will try to raise funds to bring Federation members together
in Montreal. Vice President Power will appoint Member-at-large Sala
to become Chairman of the International Affairs committee in order
to continue to promote the Federation.
1) Start the cycle by articulating a goal for the ad campaign.
A goal for the campaign was articulated as Desired Future Conditions. What do we want the public to do differently 20 years from now? What needs to be done now so that people will demand certain activities and behaviors from their peers, corporations, government? Where are there opportunities for environment to perform services Society now pays for? How can we capitalize on the way people like the idea of clean, healthy environment by teaching them enough basic ecology that they know how to weigh trade-offs and then act on them?
2) Hold a meeting of like-minded people (experienced
ad groups or advocacy groups) to get a message honed. NGOs involved
with Visions may want to help.
B. Report of the Vice President for Finance (presented by Biggs
C. FY 20042005 ESA budget
1) The budget was presented, and a motion to approve
the budget for presentation to the Council was seconded. The motion
was unanimously approved.
D. Nominations for the 2005 GB Ballot
Past President Bartuska presented the following slate of candidates
who have been contacted and agreed to serve:
The slate was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved.
Bartuska noted the difficulty in getting international scientists and women to agree to serve. There was discussion that future boards might include corporate members, NGOs, and an agreement to hold a discussion with the Nominating Committee as to what kind of expertise is needed on the board. A motion was made, seconded, and approved to: (a) alter the statement of nominees to include a candidate statement along with a brief biography, describing why they are interested in serving ESA; and (b) have entire statement not to exceed 400 words.
E. Yearly public policy priorities
The suggested list of Forest Management, Endangered Species Act, Marine Issues, and Invasive Species was moved, seconded, and approved by the GB. Other topics brought up included water issues and climate change. GB will revisit the list of priorities in January.
F. Women and Minorities in Ecology (WAMIE) Report
A draft report will be finalized for the fall GB meeting. Preliminary results show there has been a change in ESA leadership to include more women, but ethnic membership still lags. Other activities suggested in the first 1994 WAMIE report are now routine: childcare and facilities for disabled at ESA meetings, more women in leadership (but not symposia sponsorship), SEEDS. The EHR committee will update profiles of ecologists. A suggestion was made that Corporate Award winners be tapped for expertise and advice. Tangentially related to this topic, the GB suggested future student breakfast bagels meetings be free of charge.
H. Annual Meeting Leadership Appointments
The nominations of Kerry Woods to be program chair for 2007 and Lou Gross for 2008 were moved, seconded, unanimously accepted. The nomination of Gretchen Meyer as local host for Milwaukee was moved, seconded and unanimously approved.
I. Update on Portland Annual Meeting from Tom Swetnam
The largest meeting ever has 2722 abstracts, up 975 from 2003. There were 60 proposals for symposia, and section chairs were involved in symposia review. In addition there are showcase sessions, 36 organized oral sessions (OOS), 142 contributed paper sessions. The OOS may have boosted attendance, since these are 300 invited, mid-level speakers who might not otherwise have come. Special sessions are scheduled. The 950 contributed posters marks another record. There is a record number of exhibits, a Jobmart, abstract kiosks. As in previous years, ~4950% of meeting participants are attending their first meeting. With a new program chair each year it is essential to have an assistant. David Grow, who will continue to work for Paul Ringold for next year, has been terrific, and has offered good judgment and stability for the past two years. GB may need to budget for an assistant in future years to ensure the same type of continuity. Ellen Cardwell has done a phenomenal job building relationships with AV specialists, travel operators, etc., in order to build continuity, lower costs. There was a suggestion the 100th Annual Meeting be held in Washington. (This is now the 89th Annual Meeting.)
J. Meeting with E-I-C Don Strong
Strong has transformed Ecology and addressed issues related
to overly long papers, overloaded editors, editor retention, and declining
submissions over the past 3 years. Some papers now come out in less
than a year. Papers are clear, concise, exciting. Monographs
are still truly complex, special, accompanied by digital material.
There is a formal process for reconsideration of rejection. Editors
now number ~100 who agree to review only as much as they want to,
ranging from 2 to 20 papers per year. There are three Associate E-I-Cs.
Unlike in the past, Ecology now publishes deep-time papers,
paleo-ecology, global oceanic marine ecology, statistical ecology,
mathematical ecology, and fosters gender and geographical diversity
Future directions include shorter publications and shorter time to
publish in the future in order to keep up with some of the fastest
publications. Since there are a fixed number of pages, other options
include electronic Monographs and Ecology. A proposed
model for Ecology journals could be three publications: Ecology
Reports, Ecological Monographs, Ecology (which becomes
very slim). Recall the Brown report made this same suggestion years
ago. There is a need to build in better communication between E-I-C
and GB, maybe through review committee. Need for continued appreciation,
awareness of challenges, discussion of direction.
A fiscal consideration is that the products need to look like something a library will pay for, so as not to lose the revenue. But we need to keep current with how people now read manuscripts. Strong analogy here to outdated General Motors technology when confronted with Hondas and hybrids. Geophysical Research Lettersquick concept papers that mark the territory followed up by longer papers. The process of reviewing Ecology Letters is similar to Science/Nature in that everything is fast. If we had a journal that was short, fast, and all ecology, the content would be appealing to ecologists. Make Ecology Reports like Science. Frontiers could become the AMBIO analog. President Schlesinger suggests the topic of what the ESA journals look like be revisited in future meetings.
L. CertificationEmeritus Status Proposal
The GB moved and seconded a motion to adopt a recommendation from the Board of Professional Certification to allow senior certified ecologists to move into an emeritus status. The motion was unanimously declined.
M. Meeting with E-I-C Allen Solomon
There is a need to make sure the Bulletin stays in the loop of information for members, and in particular, the E-I-C of the Bulletin must be kept informed of Society affairs. The records of the Society are kept in the Bulletin. Electronic archives of old Bulletin papers are still very popular. The GB greatly appreciates the 12 years of editorial service provided by Solomon, and welcomes Ed Johnson as the new E-I-C in 2005.
N. Meeting with E-I-C Sue Silver
The journal provides cross-disciplinary reading for ecologists and educational tools. Frontiers does not yet have the circulation that attracts advertising to meet advertising targets, but a new marketing manager has been hired. ESAs marketing consultant, Barbara Myers, is making lists of potential advertisers and potential institutional subscribers (such as libraries). In order to achieve financial solvency, Frontiers will need to become self-sufficient. The GB will want to address the content within the next couple of years. Is there a mechanism after two years of issues to review and see how effective the journal is, including an external evaluation and comprehensive readership survey? (There were 330 respondents from the first survey.) The GB suggests the Publication Committee examine Frontiers in the context of the other ESA publications. Institutional subscriptions will be vital to making the journal viable.
O. Meeting with E-I-C Dave Schimel
Citations of Ecological Applications are high, submissions are high,
feedback is excellent. First-rate publications on actual applications
are coming in. Future Introductions and Abstracts of new papers will
explicitly address the usefulness of the research.
President-Elect Melillo asks that the editors, the GB, and the Publications Committee update and develop very concise mission statements for all journals.
ESA GB is to discuss the nature of its response on Friday do we submit names or do we describe the kind of person we think appropriate? Once we decide we will respond directly to NSF.
B. Dates for the Fall GB meeting: 2526 October for fall
meeting, 24 October for New Board Member orientation.
of the ESA Council
2004 Edward S. Deevey Award
Edward S. Deevey, a founder of modern paleoecology, was a dedicated student advisor who mentored many investigators active in the field today. To honor his memory and encourage high-quality research by graduate students, the Paleoecology Section presents an award to the student or recent graduate making the best oral or poster presentation in paleoecology at the ESA Annual Meeting. Jason McLachlan, a recent Ph.D recipient from the Biology Department at Duke University, won the 2004 Deevey Award for his talk titled The importance of small populations in the postglacial dynamics of eastern forests. Dr. McLachlans presentation, which he conducted with coauthors James S. Clark and Paul S. Manos, used patterns of genetic variation in modern tree populations and fossil pollen data to reconstruct patterns of postglacial migration in eastern North America.
The presentation synthesized results recently published in Forest Ecology and Management and currently in review in Ecology. The judges committee was particularly impressed with his innovative methodology and the significance of his work to future paleoecological research. Dr. McLachlan has a B.A. in Geography from Columbia University and an M.S. in Forest Ecology from the University of Washington. This fall, he is starting a postdoctoral appointment at the Harvard Forest, where he will continue to integrate fossil pollen data with molecular markers and statistical models to understand the historical population dynamics of forests. Philip Higuera received honorable mention for his presentation titled When does a charcoal peak represent a fire? Insights from a simple statistical model. Mr. Higuera is a graduate student in the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington. Coauthors Daniel G. Gavin and Matthew E. Peters assisted Mr. Higuera with this research. The Paleoecology Section thanks students who competed for this years Deevey Award and encourages others to participate in the 2005 competition, to be held at the Annual Meeting in Montréal, Canada. The Section also appreciates the efforts of the 2004 Deevey Award Selection Committee: Jason Lynch (Chair), Lisa Carlson, Allen Solomon, Bob Booth, Don Falk, and Bryan Shuman.
Photographs by F. Sergio,
V. Penteriani and C. Scandolara
(all rights reserved, used by permission)
click on a photo below for a larger image
Territory quality is a multifaceted concept, incorporating various components ultimately related to fitness potential, such as predation risk and availability of essential resources like food, suitable foraging habitats, and breeding sites. Gathering information on all such components may be a difficult task, especially for inexperienced individuals choosing a territory for the first time. The wrong choice may have severe consequences, including death. Evidence is increasing that individuals may employ comprehensive indirect cues to assess habitat and territory quality, including risk of predation.
We examined the decision rules employed by a medium-sized opportunistic raptor, the Black Kite (Milvus migrans), to establish territories. Kites were studied for 12 years in various study plots scattered through the Alps.
There, the diet is dominated by fish and Black Kites mainly breed in loose colonies on cliffs facing large lakes, their optimal habitat for foraging.
Such habitat is also favored by Eagle Owls (Bubo bubo), which may prey on kite adults and nestlings, especially when the two species nest within one to two kilometers of each other.We found that Black Kites employed a mixture of direct and indirect cues to establish new territories. Independently of phylopatry and coloniality, new territories were typically near to already occupied ones that had higher than average breeding performance in the previous year, implying that the owners of the new territory watched their conspecifics in previous years to collect information on which to base their future decisions. Such exploitation of public information affected nest spacing and population trend. On one hand, as colonies grew, the distribution of nests within them became more clumped, while on the other hand, higher colony and population-level productivity in one year were followed by higher recruitment of new breeders in the following year. Finally, the establishment of new territories near conspecifics was not a peaceful process. There was much fighting between the new neighbors and a breeding cost for the previous residents, suggesting that conspecific cuing may be a form of information parasitism, at least in our study system. Look for the article by F. Sergio and V. Penteriani, Public information and territory establishment in a loosely colonial raptor, to be published in Ecology Volume 86, February 2005.
|Enhancement of soil nitrogen (N) cycling by grazing has
been observed in many grassland ecosystems. However, whether grazing
affects the activity only of the key microbial functional groups driving
soil N dynamics, or also affects the size (cell number) and/or composition
of these groups remains largely unknown. We studied the enzyme activity,
size, and composition of five soil microbial communities (total microbial
and total bacterial communities, and three functional groups driving
N dynamics: nitrifiers, denitrifiers, and free N2 fixers) in grassland
sites experiencing contrasting sheep grazing regimes (one light grazing
[LG] site and one intensive grazing [IG] site) at two topographical
locations. Greater enzyme activities, particularly for nitrification,
were observed in IG than in LG sites at both topographical locations.
The numbers of heterotrophs, nitrifiers, and denitrifiers were higher
in IG than LG sites at both topographical locations. Phospholipid and
nucleic acid analyses showed that the composition of all the communities,
except nitrate reducers, differed between IG and LG sites at both locations.
For each community, changes in activity were correlated to changes in
the occurrence of a few individual PLFAs (phospholipid fatty acids)
or DNA fragments. Our results thus indicate that grazing enhances the
activity of soil microbial communities, but also concurrently induces
changes in the size and composition/structure of these communities on
the sites studied.
Look for the article by A. K. Patra et al., Effects of grazing
on microbal functional, groups involved in soil N dynamics,
in the February 2005 issue of Ecological Monographs 75(1).
The problem with the messages of plantherbivore interactions in ecology textbooks
Plantherbivore interaction is one of two parts of the first
trophic transfer of energy and nutrients between organisms in ecosystems
(the other part being the dead plantdetritivore path). Despite
its importance in understanding life on Earth, students in general
seem to have limited knowledge of what we have learned about plantherbivore
interaction (Stamp 2004). That can translate into the public not having
adequate background to evaluate government policy, for instance, relative
to effects of global warming on agriculture and forestry, genetic
modification of crops, insect pest and weed control, range management,
or zoonotic diseases reflecting human disturbance of plantherbivore
systems (e.g., Lyme disease).
Given its era, each text had information, presentation, and features to recommend it. In the 1970s, there was an average of 0.4% of the text devoted to plantherbivore interactions and plantherbivore population dynamics, and another 0.2% on plant defense. The emphasis was on predatorprey interactions, especially conspicuous patterns of consumption of and damage to plants. In the 1980s, there was an average of 0.6% on plantherbivore interactions and dynamics, with another 0.6% on plant defense. The descriptions tended toward the arms-race view of plantherbivore interactions. In the 1990s, there was an average of 0.7% on plantherbivore interactions and dynamics, with another 0.5% on plant defense, but the messages tended to be diluted by the emphasis on specific examples. In the 2000s, there was an average of 0.7% on plantherbivore interactions and dynamics, with another 0.8% on plant defense, but the messages still werent coming across as clearly as needed.
Messages in recent ecology textbooks
Below are some key messages of plantherbivore interactions
and how they are (or are not) presented in ecology textbooks published
in the last 10 years.
In terms of presentation of plant defense theory, 50% of the ecology
textbooks published in the last 10 years mentioned some of the plant
defense ideas. When there was any significant space allocated to plant
defense, apparency and categorizing plants as having qualitative
vs. quantitative defenses, as outlined by Feeny (1976),
was often presented. But the other plant defense hypotheses (e.g.,
carbon:nutrient balance of Bryant et al. , growth rate hypothesis
of Coley et al. , growth-differentiation balance hypothesis
as applied to plantherbivore interactions by Herms and Mattson
) were seldom presented. For some time now, it has been clear
that plant defense is much more complicated than the apparency/qualitativequantitative
idea (Stamp 2003a). Its continued presence in textbooks may reflect
that this idea allows for a simple explanation that fits
with peoples perceptions of plants and their ecology. However,
now it has become a misconception that is perpetuated by textbooks.
From an historical perspective, it makes sense to discuss the hypothesis,
but only if it is evaluated and subsequent hypotheses are presented.
The hypothesis development in the area of plant defense is a particularly
nice example of how science works (Stamp 2003a), but such a
perspective seldom occurs in the ecology texts.
How to engage students minds when text space is limited
For ecology texts published in the years 20002003, the average
number of text pages was about 500, with about 8 pages devoted to
plantherbivore interactions. The plantherbivore pages
typically had about 1.5 pages of illustrations and 4,400 words. Given
that authors are pressed to cover all of ecology (including current
global issues), it is probably unrealistic to expect more coverage
than that. The question then is how to use the limited space effectively
to convey the key messages. Due to the problems of zoochauvinsim and
plant blindness (Hershey 2002), authors of ecology textbooks
probably feel that it is a challenge to interest students in plants
and herbivores, especially insects. So it is not simply a matter of
presenting concepts, messages and examples concisely; first, students
minds have to be engaged in the material (Dreyfus et al. 1990).
In sum, the key messages of plantherbivore interactions are
not presented well in most recent ecology texts. But it is impractical
to expect greater coverage. The key messages of plantherbivore
interactions are tied to fundamental ecological concepts (e.g., energy
flow, nutrient cycling, population dynamics, trophic interactions).
Therefore, it is imperative to present the messages in a way that
both engages students and explicitly addresses the integration of
I thank Mike Armstrong and Tracy Curtis for comments on the manuscript and Ellen Simms and Rick Lindroth for the opportunity to discuss some of these ideas at the 2004 Gordon Conference on PlantHerbivore Interactions. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DUE-0226897.
Alonso-Amelot, M. E. 1997. The link between bracken
fern and stomach cancer: milk. Nutrition 13:694696.
A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 15: The Precocious Origins of Human and Animal Demography and Statistics in the 1600s
In antiquity there had been a slight interest in human demography
and a more definite interest in animal demography, but no continuous
tradition of investigation developed (Egerton 1968, 1975, 2001a,
b). During the 1600s interest in human demography arose, and that
revived interest in animal demography. The first theoretical problem
came from the Old Testament and concerned the longevity and consequent
population growth of the Biblical patriarchs (Egerton 1966). Genesis
5 claims that the early descendants of Adam lived over 500 years,
and later, according to Genesis 6, God reduced human age to 120 years,
and still later to about 70 years (Psalm 90:10). There was some wonderment
about why the ages had first been so long and later reduced, but the
question that provoked calculations was the rate at which the earth
had been populated by the descendants of Adam and Eve, and then later
by the descendants of Noah.
In this passage Brown introduced into the English language the terms
multiparous, uniparous, oviparous, vermiparous, and viviparous. He
emphasized that a slow rate of reproduction did not deter increase
in population when individuals of a species are long lived, with a
long period of fertility. He compared in this respect the two digitated
animals that are uniparous, humans and elephants. The latter carries
the embryo for two years, but it also lives 100 years (according to
Aristotle). Browne accepted both the balance of nature (long-lived
species have few offspring; short-lived species have many) and the
possibility of animal plagues, but he did not pursue the question
of when the balance breaks down and there is such a plague. If asked,
he might have mentioned that the conies lacked predators on Isle Astipalea.
Speculations about populating the world, whether by animals or humans, were not enough to found a new discipline of study. In 1662 a successful London haberdasher, John Graunt (16201674), who also held several city offices, published Natural and Political Observations Mentioned in a following Index, and Made upon the Bills of Mortality: with Reference to the Government, Religion, Trade, Growth, Ayre, Diseases, and the several Changes of the said City. This first statistical treatise, which went through five editions by 1676 (fifth edition reprinted in Hull 1899:II, 314435) demonstrated the usefulness of demographic statistics for government, medicine, and other purposes, and he aroused the interest of scholars and government officials throughout Europe (Glass 1964, Egerton 1972, Lewin 2004). London published weekly its number of deaths and their probable causes (a sample of these bills of mortality are reproduced in Wolf 1950:589593). Graunt stated in his preface that he felt the bills of mortality should have a greater use than merely warning people when the plague was increasing, or satisfying idle curiosity. Besides the stimulus of Graunts civic spirit, it seems likely that his book was encouraged and guided by his friend, Sir William Petty (16231687), one of the original members of the Royal Society of London (Greenwood 1948:3639, Egerton 1974, Barnard 2004). He explained that the London data had several defects that affected their accuracy: the frequency and geographical area covered in the reports vary through the years; there was a lack of standardized terminology to describe causes of death; and christening records only indicated numbers of births within the state religion. Yet these data could still be used to make important discoveries. One of his most important discoveries was the regularity of phenomena when there is extensive data. The numbers dying from most causesexcluding epidemic diseases, but including chronic diseases, suicides, murders, and various accidentsremained about the same from year to year. The records indicated that a few more boys were born than girls, and that the sex ratio remained about equal. He tried to deduce from the data the size of the population, distribution of ages within the population, and the differences in mortality between city and country. Although his book was eye-opening, his procedures were sometimes difficult to understand, and his degree of accuracy was not easily assessed. He calculated the population of London as follows (Graunt 1662: Chapter 11):
This procedure might not inspire confidence in a modern statistician,
but it was adequate at the birth of statistics. Furthermore, Graunt
also attempted to estimate the population by three other methods.
In addition to the weekly London bills of mortality, Graunt used christening
records and statistics from the country parish of Romsey, which he
compared to London statistics. When he compared the birth, marriage,
and death statistics of London and Romsey, he learned that one in
50 die per year in Romsey, but in London it is one in 32. He concluded
that life expectancy was greater in the country than in the city,
and that the smoke of London was the factor causing shorter life spans.
Brief though these reports are, Graunt pointed out two simple but
useful methods to study fish populations.
Hale wanted to prove that the rate of human population growth since
the Flood of Noah, supposedly about 5000 years ago, would yield the
estimated contemporary world population. Graunts research had
been too restricted to actually prove his assertion to this effect.
Hale attempted to answer four questions: (1) whether mankind would
gradually increase if there were no environmental checks; (2) what
environmental checks existed; (3) whether these checks have prevented
an increase in human numbers during historical times; and (4) whether
humanity had an origin in the not-too-distant past (Hale 1677:203204).
No one doubted a positive answer to his first question, but no one
before Graunt had statistical data with which to reason. Hale used
figures which he thought were more conservative than were likely true.
He assumed that: a couple would be fertile for 20 years, they would
live 60 years, the sex ratio of their children would be approximately
equal, they would have six children but only two would reach maturity,
these two would marry and produce two children of their own before
their own parents died. When each generation died at age 60, there
had been a net increase of four. This seemed to be a simple calculation,
yet it was wrong; when the average couple produces only two maturing
offspring, the population usually remains stable rather than increasing.
(Hales personal experience was as follows: he had 10 children,
four of whom died in childhood; although the other six married, only
two survived him; he had 18 grandchildren.) Hale then introduced figures
from Aristotle concerning the age of reproduction, numbers of offspring,
and longevity of commonly known animals.
Graunt was first to give enough statistical data to provide a basis
for assessment of checks on population, but since his data was for
a single city over a short time period, Hale evaluated other accounts
of plagues, famines, wars, internecine conflicts, floods, and conflagrations.
He wanted to show that, taken together, they did not prevent population
growth, thereby discrediting the ancient Greek notion that there were
cycles of calamities which appear periodically and leave only a few
people and animals to repopulate the world (Hale 1677:217225).
His main evidence was an impressive analysis of historical records
by which he showed that the populations of both Jews and English had
increased throughout their recorded history despite epidemics, famines,
floods, wars, and other calamities (Hale 1677:230238).
Barnard, T. 2004. Sir William Petty (16231687),
natural philosopher and administrator in Ireland. Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography oxforddnb.com.
I thank for their assistance Rev. Pasquale Barletta, Catholic Church, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Jean-Marc Drouin, Musée Nationale dHistoire Naturelle, Paris, and Anne-Marie Drouin-Hans, Université de Bourgogne, France.
|The following position statement was hand
delivered to all members of the U.S. Congress this summer, and to our
knowledge, is the first such statement from the scientific community
on this topic.
The goal of the statement was:
1) To produce a useful tool for Members of Congress and their staff
to evaluate proposed peer review regimes using criteria developed
Position Statement on Scientific Peer Review
Peer review is an integral component of scientific research and publishing. It allows the scientific community to maintain quality control of research through the review of research proposals, journal manuscripts and other reports. Academic peer review, although far from perfect, is the best tool scientists have to ensure high standards for their professional work.
This idea has been translated into the policy arena through scientific peer review the review, by scientific experts, of in-house agency science or the body of science underlying management decisions. These types of reviews are critically important tools for policy makers. They allow experts from both inside and outside the federal government to provide technical advice and analysis, increasing public confidence in federal science, and ensuring that the best quality information is used in decision making.
However, it is critical that scientific peer review programs be carefully designed to maintain objectivity, quality, and thoroughness. While scientific peer review is an important tool for decision makers, a poorly designed process can do more harm than good. It is for this reason that we endorse the following list of important considerations for government scientific peer review of agency-produced science and the body of science underlying management decisions.
College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Estuarine Research Federation
Institute of Food Technologists
Soil Science Society of America
Society for Conservation Biology
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
| The first priority in choosing reviewers should
be to engage the most competent scientists. Therefore, conflict of interest
exclusions must be carefully designed to balance barring those with
a direct conflict of interest and the reality of a finite pool of suitable
reviewers. The key issue in selecting reviewers is whether they bring
the necessary scientific knowledge and objectivity to reviewing the
matter at hand.
Scientific peer review should be insulated from politics as much as possible. Oversight of scientific peer review should be vested in scientists and science managers within the agencies. This adds assurance that the composition of panels is not being unduly influenced by politics and constitutes a representative subset of the scientists most competent to review and assess the topic. The agencies must be trusted to perform the task of constituting and overseeing fair and independent scientific peer review efforts, without interference from political entities
Even the best scientific peer review cannot give policy makers the right answer. Scientific peer review can provide assurances that rigorous, conclusions logically follow from the results. However, often more than one interpretation of the data set can be made, and there may be no way to determine which interpretation is best. Where data are limited or other uncertainties abound, scientific peer review can point these problems out, but it cannot overcome them.
Scientific peer review must maintain programmatic flexibility. While guidelines can help to ensure that certain standards are met and maintained, an overly rigid process, particularly for scientific peer review of the body of science underlying policy decisions, will result in inefficient use of time and resources. It may be overly prescriptive to stipulate the number of reviewers, the questions they must answer, or the type of report they must produce for the broad range of agency scientific work.
All scientific peer review must be based upon an assumption of integrity. While commonsense measures can be taken to weed out direct conflicts of interest, an implementable system can never be fully cleared of all potential conflicts of interest. Instead, fair reviews are the product of professional standards of conduct that are a fundamental component of training in scientific research. Scientific peer review must ultimately rest on the presumed integrity of the reviewers.
Efforts to revise the process of peer review should acknowledge
the differences in professional culture that often divide scientists,
policy makers, and the public. The academic model of peer review calls
on reviewers to be as critical as possible. This is done so that authors
are able to make improvements where they can and so that the weaknesses
of the work are understood and acknowledged. Thus, results from scientific
peer review that highlight uncertainties, questions, and alternative
explanations do not mean that the science was not well done or that
its findings are invalid. Science is inherently uncertain and there
will always be unanswered questions and areas where more research
is needed. However, acknowledging uncertainty should not be equated
with an inability to draw conclusions; managers often must act without
complete certainty. Scientific peer review, properly carried out by
competent peer scientists, can reassure managers, decision makers,
and the public that such difficult decisions are based on research
that represents the current state of our scientific understanding.
will replace Technological Tools
This new column, to
be jointly edited by David Inouye and Sam Scheiner, is aimed at
highlighting new or emerging areas of technology and methodology
in ecology. Topics may range from hardware to software to statistical
analyses, or to technologies that are or could be used in ecology.
Some of these will be bleeding-edge developments, but they can include
long-standing methods from other fields that have not yet caught
on in ecology. Here is your chance to share your little-known favorite
method or to show off the secret geek side of your personality.
the Presentation of Results of Logistic Regression
University of Michigan Biological Station (UMBS)
Without the sign at the main entrance of the University of Michigan Biological Station UMBS), you might not suspect that this driveway leads to land that has been a research and teaching field station since 1909. And without a map, you might not have realized that during the last two miles of your drive you were already surrounded by the Stations property. The Biological Station manages 10,000 acres (4050 ha) bounded by undeveloped shoreline, including 9 km on Douglas Lake (15.2 km2 area) and 2.5 km on Burt Lake (69.29 km2) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 2. A 1909 photograph overlooking the engineering camp before cabins were built, with Douglas Lake and Grapevine Point in the background.
Fig. 3. Looking west through the Douglas Lake campus in 1910
Fig. 4. . . . and looking west through the Douglas Lake campus
|In 1908, when Colonel and Mrs. Charles
Bogardus gave the first 1441 acres (580 ha) to the University of Michigan
for research and education purposes, it was a worn piece of land.
With soil too sandy for successful agriculture, and stripped of saleable
lumber, it was a clear-cut, burnt piece of Northern Michigan, 260
miles north of the Universitys Ann Arbor campus, and 20 miles
south of the Straits of Mackinaw, which divides Michigans Upper
and Lower Peninsulas (Fig. 2).
Now numbering among North Americas oldest continuously operating field stations, UMBS held its first summer session in 1909. The campus was initially shared with the Universitys Civil Engineering department for student training in surveying, and the engineers legacy of precisely built rows of tinsided shacks are still used by studentsthe biologists contented themselves with setting up tents farther down the lake. However, as the land recovered and plants and trees reestablished themselves (Figs. 3 and 4), the property became less useful for teaching surveying methods, and in 1929 the engineers moved to Wyoming. After they left, the biologists happily moved into the empty engineers facilities, and have expanded them considerably in the years since.
In its 96 years of operation, UMBS has served more than 8400 students, and research based at this field station is described in >2660 publications, including 202 theses and dissertations, fulfilling the mission of the Biological Station: the integration of research and education in field biology. Fundamental work in parasitology, plant ecology, animal behavior, limnology, global change research, and atmospheric science has been carried out here. Due to a tradition of linked education and research programs, and to the presence of diverse habitats protected within its boundaries, the UMBS is designated as a Biosphere Reserve by the U.N. Man and the Biosphere Program and as an Experimental Ecological Reserve by the National Science Foundation.
The center of UMBS is laid out in the form of a small village on
Douglas Lakes South Fishtail Bay (Fig. 5). About 150 buildings
serve the communitys needs for housing, dining, teaching,
research, maintenance, and recreation. In the summer, our peak time,
with nearly 300 residents, housing is provided by 70 one-room, two-bed
cabins, 30 larger two- and six-room cabins, and a 14-room residence
hall with 30 beds. These residences can all be used from April through
October. The rest of the year, residents and visitors live in 14
winterized cabins or in the 30-bed dormitory. Our dining hall is
capable of serving our maximum population in a single sitting, and
is open from mid-May through early fall.
Field-centered coursework is offered in a 4-week spring term (mid-May to mid-June) and an 8-week summer term (mid-June to mid-August). Classes are taught by 1520 faculty members, most of whom also conduct research at UMBS. Enrolled students typically take a single 5-credit course in spring term and two 5-credit courses in summer term. Classes are small, with 618 students per course section. Every summer General Ecology and Natural History and Evolution are taught alongside other upper-level courses such as limnology, entomology, parasitology, mammalogy, behavioral ecology, ornithology, phycology, ichthyology, ethnobotany, and field botany (Fig. 6). We also teach an entry-level course, Introduction to Natural Sciences, during spring term.
Fig. 6. The 1910 plant ecology class doing plane
The Station has close links to the Universitys Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department where Director Knute Nadelhoffer is a professor. Students and researchers from other UM units, including the School of Natural Resources and the Environment, and the College of Engineering, participate in UMBS programs, as do faculty and students from across the United States and around the world (In 2004, 12 of our faculty were from institutions other than the University of Michigan.) In addition to our 1520 faculty, our field seasons usually include ~100 undergraduate students, 25 principal investigators, 50 graduate student investigators, and 40 research assistants at the Douglas Lake facility. In 2003, Station visitors came from 34 different universities, colleges, and agencies.
Fig. 7. . . . and birding with Dr. James Watson (UMBS alumnus from 1946) during his 2003 visit to give the Pettingill Lecture in Natural History, part of the UMBS summer lecture series.
Fig. 8. The Alfred H. Stockard Lakeside Laboratory is the largest
building at UMBS, with 24,000 square feet (2230 m2)
of floor space.
|For the past 20 summers we have offered adult, noncredit
mini-courses at our site. Practicing naturalists, retired biologists,
students, alumni, and other interested individuals spend 5 days living
at the Station. Our 2004 mini-courses featured studies of mollusks,
northern Michigan flora, northern Michigan birds, American nature
writing, aquatic vascular plants, art in nature, forest and landscape
ecology, northern Michigan fungi, and photography in nature. Each
course is taught by a faculty member who is well acquainted with the
Biological Station and the northern Michigan region. Beginning last
year, we initiated a childrens mini-course, Be a Biologist:
Science Adventure for Kids.
UMBS hosts many lectures, workshops, symposia, and short visits by classes from the Ann Arbor campus or from other colleges and universities, public school groups, and community organizations. During the summer, we regularly invite to the Station speakers who give evening lectures in the auditorium or seminar room (Fig. 7). In 2004, our various symposia and research meetings, departmental retreats, local elementary, middle, and high school classes, church groups, and open houses for the surrounding community had visitor counts ranging from 50 to 150 people. Additionally, a large number of hikers, birders, snowshoers, and cross-county skiers traverse our lands. Such passive use is encouraged on all but the most sensitive research areas.
The Stations largest building is the Alfred H. Stockard Lakeside Laboratory (Fig. 8) with 24,000 square feet (2230 m2) of floor space. This laboratory is centrally heated and ventilated and provides electricity, hot and cold water, de-ionized water, lake water, gas, compressed air, and Ethernet throughout. Special features include a computer laboratory, photo darkrooms, a stockroom, a large, enclosed boatwell connected to Douglas Lake, and an analytical chemistry facility. The chemistry facility is managed by a chemist and provides residents with access to special analytical equipment including a Bran and Luebbe autoanalyzer, a CHN analyzer, a Packard liquid scintillation counter, and a Finnigan Delta Plus XL isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS). Other equipment available for general use includes freezers and refrigerators, a lyophilizer, autoclaves, spectrophotometers, ovens, incubators, balances, centrifuges, and microscopes. The stockroom provides consumable chemicals, standard glassware, and a wide variety of field equipment and sampling apparatus (plankton nets, snowshoes, tree ladders ).
The UMBS has been a center of research on organisms, habitats, and ecosystems of the Upper Great Lakes region since its founding. Data records and ongoing activities include: meteorological records (since 1912), lakewater chemistry (since 1913), parasitehost records (since the 1920s), forest succession on controlled burn plots (since 1936), forest succession (50-year and forestry) plots (since 1938), breeding bird diversity and abundances (since 1941), vegetation responses to lake level changes (since 1971), precipitation chemistry (since 1979), soil temperature recording (since 1987), small-mammal abundances (since 1989), mercury deposition (since 1992), and UV-B monitoring (since 1994). These longitudinal databases and others provide an exceptional opportunity to compare todays organisms and ecosystems with those of past decades. Specimen collections are available to researchers and are especially extensive in birds, fishes, insects, invertebrates, algae, parasites, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.
Fig. 10. A view along the roof of the underground laboratory space of the UMBS Soil Biotron, a belowground laboratory that provides rare opportunities to view and study roots, fungal hyphae, soil invertebrates, and microbes in situ in the upper 1.2 m of soil.
Fig. 11. During the breeding season, the Great Lakes Piping Plover ecology and conservation team uses UMBS as a research base.
and nitrogen cycles
As a location to investigate atmosphericecosystem interactions, the UMBS is outstanding. We operate two towers (within 100 m of each other) with sensors for monitoring forestatmosphere gas exchanges (Fig. 9). The PROPHET tower (Program for Research on Oxidants: PHotochemistry, Emissions, and Transport) is 35 m tall and was constructed in 1996 to measure above-canopy concentrations and fluxes, in order to study atmospheric, chemical, and meteorological processes linked to tropospheric ozone and oxidant formation, as well as how the atmosphere affects the forest nitrogen budget (Carroll et al. 2001). The UMBS Carbon Flux Study (part of the US DOE AMERIFLUX network) uses a 50-m eddy covariance tower, erected in 1998, to study forestatmosphere CO2, water, and energy exchanges (Curtis et al. 2002, Schmid et al. 2003). Both towers operate year-round. The UMBS Carbon Flux Study also measures a suite of physical, ecological, and soil data to follow carbon flows into vegetation and belowground.
The UM Biological Station also has a belowground laboratory located in a mixed hardwood forest that provides rare opportunities to view and study roots, fungal hyphae, soil invertebrates, and microbes in situ in the upper 1.2 m of soil (Fig. 10). The Soil Biotron was built in 1987 with NSF support to facilitate observations and experiments in soil environments (Teeri 1992). After the building was constructed, soil from a nearby plot was excavated in thin layers and the profiles were carefully reconstructed alongside the Biotron observation windows. It differs from most lysimeter-rhizotrons in having removable windows to allow sampling or manipulation of soil biota. A total of 34 1.2 ´ 1.2 m observation windows, each with 16 0.3 ´ 0.3 m removable panes, yields a total of 544 0.9-m2 sampling areas. Nearly 500 nearby trees (bigtooth aspen, red oak, red maple, beech, red pine, and small white pine) are permanently tagged and their diameters recorded. Roots of these trees, including mycorrhizae, are visible from the windows. The Biotron has enabled studies of carbon flow to roots, root turnover, soil plantfungalanimal dynamics, mycorrhizal nutrient dynamics, and root turnover in relation to water and nutrient patchiness.
Elevated CO2, trace gas, and other facilities
Specialized research facilities also include a greenhouse, an elevated
CO2 facility (open-top chamber arrays for studying the responses
of multiple trophic levels of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
to elevated atmospheric CO2), and monitoring stations for measuring
precipitation chemistry (NADP), ultraviolet radiation (USDA UV-B),
and mercury deposition.
Other important groups based at and using station facilities include the Piping Plover ecology and conservation team (Wemmer et al. 2001) (Fig. 11), the elevated CO2 facility team (Zak et al. 2000), the artificial stream laboratory group, the Michigan gradient plots group, and the ecosystem mappers. Global change biologists have published 51 papers from work done at the elevated CO2 facility. The Artificial Stream Lab group has produced 18 papers at the artificial stream lab facility (Fig. 12), where water can be pumped out of the East Branch of the Maple River to a concrete pad and distributed into artificial streams. Much of that work has focused on chemical communication in crayfish, insect behavior, and benthic algal growth (Adams et al. 2003). In 1987 the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Michigan Technological University began a long-term study of the effects of climate and atmospheric deposition on forest productivity and ecosystem process in the Great Lakes region. The principal objective was to evaluate the role of deposition in producing significant changes in forest ecosystems (Pregitzer et al. 1995). Since 1994 the focus has shifted somewhat to the effects of chronic nitrogen deposition and experimental nitrate additions. By 2000 this group had produced 70 publications. The ecosystem mapping group, headed by UM Professor Burton Barnes, has been working at UMBS since 1988. They have produced ecosystem and cover type maps for our Douglas Lake property (and extensive data from the plots used to make the types) that have proved extremely useful to many other researchers and students on our campus.
As the University of Michigan Biological Station prepares to celebrate
its centenary in 2008, we look forward to integrating our research
and teaching programs more closely, and to actively involving students
at all levels in field studies of organisms, ecological processes,
and ecosystemclimate interactions. As we move into the 21st
century and towards our second hundred years as a field station,
we will increasingly rely on long-term databases and the knowledge
of organisms and local ecological communities to define and inform
our linked teaching and research activities. Courses are being designed
that will incorporate new environmental sensing technologies, modeling
tools, natural history information, and crossdisciplinary activities
into our field-based curriculum. We aim to provide current and future
students with skills and tools that will enable them to identify
key ecological questions and to solve environmental problems associated
with increased human activities, changes in ecological communities
and ecosystems, and climate change.
We invite creative researchers from across the world to visit and work at our field station. We strongly encourage students, both undergraduates and graduates, to consider enrolling in our courses or applying to our research programs. Many possibilities for scholarship and fellowship aid are available to motivated students. Information on opportunities for study and research is available at our web site: www.lsa.umich.edu/umbs/
Adams, J. A., N. C. Tuchman, and P. A. Moore. 2003. Atmospheric
CO2 enrichment alters leaf detritus: impacts on foraging decisions
of crayfish (Orconectes virilis). Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 22:410422.
University of Michigan Biological Station
Welcome to our new column, which is specifically targeted at ecological education in schools. We are starting this column for several reasons. First and foremost, ecological education at all levels is a key mission of the ESA, and while we already have some key initiatives in education, we want to provide a forum that stimulates and shares good practice in schools. Engaging young people in the wonders of ecological science in school can be life changing for them, and can often stimulate interest in further study in ecology. Talented teachers need support and a forum for disseminating activities that work, and beginning teachers need access to this material. There are also many ecological educators working with schools who are not in the school system. We envisage this column as accepting a wide and diverse range of submissionsfrom a diverse populationwe are open to suggestions! However, we would like to encourage material which is critical, science of ecology driven, and related to Junior and Senior High School science curriculum. Because this is an electronic medium, we have huge potential; lets use it!
We would like to include:
It would be very useful if submissions could include web links
and a few key references, as well as addressing standard criteria
for good practice in teaching, i.e., it should be safe, ethically
acceptable, environmentally responsible, and copyright free.
Charles W. (Andy) Anderson
Ecology Section Newsletter
The Applied Ecology section of ESA is the second largest and third oldest of the active sections within this Society. The Section was established in 1971 and has a twofold purpose: (1) to facilitate communication of the application of ecological principles to the solution of practical environmental problems, and (2) to encourage liaison with specialists in policy, administration, planning, health, agriculture, and natural resource management who use ecological principles in resolutions of their problems.
Ballots are in and our new officers for 20052006 are:
Student travel awards
The Applied Ecology Section seeks to support students in their
efforts to present their work at the 90th ESA Annual Meeting in
Montréal, Canada, 712 August 2005. The Section is now
calling for nominations for scholarships, with individual awards
up to $750. The deadline for receipt of applications is 15 May.
Instructions and details for the application process can be found
at the Applied Ecology Section web page: http://www.esa.org/applied/
The Applied Ecology Section is helping the Public Affairs Office
of ESA develop Rapid Response Teams to assist in responding to environmental
policy issues that have an important science component. The Section
is looking for members to develop a pool of people with a number
of areas of expertise who would comment on legislation, write editorials,
give congressional briefings, or provide testimony before Congress.
Subject areas for the rapid response teams are: biogeochemical cycling,
invasive species, conservation biology, marine ecology, global change,
agroecology, aquatic ecology, and forest ecology. If you are interested,
or would like to nominate someone, please contact a Section officer.
Canada Chapter Newsletter
The new Canada Chapter was approved by Council at the ESA Annual
Meeting in Portland in 2004. An organizational meeting was held
in Portland to set an agenda for our first year, based on e-mails
that were circulated. The meeting was attended by 4550 people,
with Sina Adl chairing. The Chapter is developing its web site to
provide links to ecology in Canada, and to communicate with members.
A symposium proposal was submitted jointly with the Biogeosciences
Section for the Montreal meeting in 2005. We anticipate a larger
than usual number of Canadian graduate students to attend this meeting.
One or two prizes will be given for student presentations.
Southeastern Chapter Newsletter
Chair: James Luken (20042006) JoLuken@coastal.edu
2005 ASB Meeting
The 2005 meeting of the Association of Southeastern Biologists will be held 1316 April 2005 in Florence, Alabama, hosted by the University of North Alabama.
SE-ESA Chapter luncheon
Elsie Quarterman-Catherine Keever Award for best student poster
This award is sponsored by our chapter and will be presented for the first time at the 2005 ASB Meeting. Undergraduate and graduate students are eligible, and the student must be the sole or senior author on a poster clearly dealing with an ecological topic and representing a completed research project. Dr. Howard Neufeld, Department of Biology, Appalachian State University, email@example.com is the chair of the award committee and is seeking volunteers to judge this years nominees. Please contact Dr. Neufeld if you are interested in judging these posters.
Eugene P. Odum Award for best student paper
Our chapter also sponsors this award. Undergraduate and graduate students are eligible, and the student must be the sole or senior author on a paper presentation clearly dealing with an ecological topic and representing a completed research project. Dr. Jake Weltzin, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, firstname.lastname@example.org is the chair of this award committee. Volunteers are needed to judge these paper presentations; contact Dr. Weltzin if you are interested.
Membership renewal and award support
Please remember to renew your membership in the SE chapter when you renew your ESA membership. Your donations to the Eugene P. Odum Fund and the new Quarterman-Keever Fund support the student awards mentioned above.
Keeping in touch
Check the Chapter home page: http://www.auburn.edu/seesa/ for updates and additional information. Join the Southeastern Chapter of ESA LISTSERVER: To join the ListServer, send a message to email@example.com with subscribe scesa in the body of the message. Please send news or announcements to firstname.lastname@example.org for distribution to the listserv, or to email@example.com for inclusion in the next quarterly newsletter.
Nicole Turrill Welch
85th Annual Meeting of
the American Society of Mammalogists
The meeting will be held 1519 June 2005 at Southwest Missouri
State University, Springfield, Missouri. In addition to contributed
oral and poster presentations covering all aspects of mammalian
biology, this years program will feature Adaptive Evolution
in Mammalian Populations, a symposium convened by Drs. Hopi
Hoekstra and Jay Storz, and Careers in Mammalogy, a
workshop led by Drs. Deidre Parish and Greg Wilson. Special addresses
will be offered by the recipients of the Joseph Grinnell (Dr. Norman
A. Slade) and C. Hart Merriam (Dr. O. J. Reichman) awards, as well
as by student honorees. Our capstone speaker will be announced at
a later date. Also included are the usual ASM socials, ideal for
Nonmembers who are interested in attending the meetings and/or presenting papers should request material from the Chairman of the Local Program Committee, Dr. Tom Tomasi, Department of Biology, Southwest Missouri State University E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. For additional information, please visit the meeting web site at http://www.asm.smsu.edu. For more information about ASM, please visit our web site at http://www.mammalsociety.org
Program Committee Co-chairs:
Society Summit on Data Sharing and Archiving Policies
An Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology Societies Summit Meeting: Critical Steps Toward a Biological Data Systems Confederation, a workshop held in Washington, D.C., 2729 September 2004. The workshop was organized by the Ecological Society of America and sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
Ready access to data is a key concern in both basic research and
problem-solving in ecology, as the scale and scope of the questions
that researchers ask expand, and as global problems demand data
collected from around the world. As computing speeds and data storage
capacities have increased and costs have dropped, technology has
become less an obstacle to ready data sharing than are the ingrained
habits of the scientific community. Changing these habits requires
development of technological means, cultural inducements, and training
opportunities that make biological data, information, and knowledge
available to all potential users, including scientists, resource
managers, decision-makers, and students. Such systemic change is
far more likely to be successful if scientific societies and funding
agencies work together, rather than acting alone.
A number of additional organizations and individuals participated to provide an international perspective, represent scientific society confederations, or offer experience on data-sharing policies. These included the American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Institute of Biological Sciences, British Ecological Society, European Society for Evolutionary Biology, Federation of Ecological Societies of the Americas, and the Canada National Research Council (NRC-Canada). Individual participants included Cliff Cunningham (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA), William Piel (University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA), Sam Scheiner (National Science Foundation [NSF], USA), Paul Uhlir (National Academy of Science, USA), and Ann Zimmerman (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA).
Setting the stage
In introductory remarks, Sam Scheiner described an increasing emphasis
on data sharing within NSF, stressing that data access adds value
to research and that NSF is strengthening its language on data sharing
for grants from the Division of Environmental Biology. Describing
the summit as a first step, Scheiner urged participants not to let
the ideal get in the way of the good in developing a set of common
policies among the societies.
Forging a vision
These opening presentations were followed by a day and a half of
intense discussions in plenary and breakout sessions. Participants
agreed broadly on the importance of data sharing to science, but
offered differing views on implementation. For example, a straw
man policy statement circulated to participants included language
calling for mandatory sharing of data supporting articles published
in the societies journals. Some participants supported this
idea, while others were concerned about author resistance to making
data generally accessible, potential impacts of policy enforcement
on the speed of the publishing process, and the lack of data centers
to serve as repositories. Participants supported the development
of a common set of principles, but there was limited support for
a policy mandating data sharing.
Vision, goals, and strategies
Examining and debating these questions led the 35 participants not to a conclusion that the issue is too complex to resolve, but rather, to a shared vision, common goals, and an agreement on specific near- term strategies, as follows.
Our vision as members of the scientific community is to promote the advancement of science through the process of documenting, archiving, and making available the research information and supporting data of published studies.
A. Research information and data supporting all published studies should be archived in public data centers, which for many disciplines still need to be established.
B. The registration of data and collection of metadata connecting published papers to the archived data are needed to make these data discoverable, accessible, and understandable.
C. These enhanced archiving and data sharing activities should be conducted in a manner that does not place an undue burden on Societies or authors.
Accomplishing this vision and implementing these goals will lead to:
· Scientific discoveries resulting from new interpretation
of existing data;
Specific near-term strategies and actions for participating societies
1. Participate in a Joint Working Group that will work with other institutions to further advance the Vision Statement and begin work to accomplish the broad goals.
2. Establish as editorial policy for scientific journals the following statement:
It is the expectation of the editors and publisher of this journal that authors will make the data underlying published articles available. Any impediments to data sharing should be brought to the attention of the editors at the time of submission.
3. Begin collecting and making available common data descriptors for published articles to provide the basis for a future data registry system [as follows].
Common Data Descriptors for Journal Articles
A. Information currently available:
B. New information to be supplied by author:
4. Participate in the development of metadata standards.
5. Identify and characterize intellectual property and data access and use concerns particular to that societys scientific community.
6. Participate in proposals to garner funding to support workshops and send representatives to workshops to implement the vision statement and broad goals outlined above.
The society representatives agreed to ask their respective governing
bodies to endorse this agreement, and ESAs Governing Board
became the first to do so in their meeting on 2526 October
2004. Specifically, the Governing Board endorsed the vision and
goals, and proposed a modified version of the editorial policy,
as follows: The editors and publisher of this journal expect
authors to make the data underlying published articles available.
This language has been forwarded to the Publications Committee for
Call for Papers: 2005 ESA Annual Meeting
The Call for Invited and Contributed Papers and Poster Presentations is now posted on the Montreal meeting web site, www.esa.org/montreal Abstracts may be submitted until the deadline, 5:00 pm Tuesday, 1 March 2005 Eastern Standard Time. Please read the Call for Abstracts thoroughly before making your submission. In addition to the contact, title, description, and code information required on the Abstract Submission site, please note that payment information for the Cancellation/No Show Fee is also required as an integral part of your submission.
Instructions for Contributors
DEADLINES: Contributions for publication in the Bulletin must reach the Editors office by the deadlines shown below to be published in a particular issue:
January (No. 1)
April (No. 2)
July (No. 3)
October (No. 4)
Please note that all material for publication in the Bulletin must be sent to the Bulletin Editor. Materials sent to any address except that of the Editor, given below, must then be forwarded to the Editor, resulting in delay in action on the manuscripts. Send all contributions, except those for Emerging Technologies, Ecology 101, Ecological education K12, and Obituaries/Resolutions of Respect (see addresses below), to E .A. Johnson, Bulletin Editor-in-Chief, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Albert, T2N 1N4 Canada. Phone (403) 220-7635, Fax (403) 289-9311, E-mail: email@example.com.
MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION: The manuscript should be submitted as a WordPerfect or Microsoft Word (for Mac or DOS) manuscript, preferably as an e-mail message attachment to firstname.lastname@example.org. E-mailed photographs and diagrams must be in .tiff or .eps format. Other forms of electronic copy (text embedded in e-mail messages, diskettes sent by post) or hard copy can be submitted if absolutely necessary. If formatting could be troublesome (e.g., tables, European alphabet characters, etc.), hard copy also should be sent via fax to E. A. Johnson at (403) 289-9311, or via post. Hard-copy manuscripts should be double-spaced, with ample margins. Plain formatting must be used on hard-copy and electronic manuscripts. PLAIN FORMATTING consists of a single font of a single size, left justification throughout, line spacing the same throughout, and up to three different weights of headings. Other formats will not be accepted for publication. The author should THOROUGHLY PROOF the manuscript for accuracy, paying special attention to phone and fax numbers and web site and e-mail addresses, which are frequently incorrect.
COVER PHOTOGRAPHS: The photo should illustrate
ecological processes or an ecological research design. The cover of the
July, 2004 issue is a good example. It helps if the colors in the photo
are bright, although black and white photos are considered if they are
well composed with good contrast.
If you would like to submit a digital file, submissions can be small jpegs (72 dpi) but if the image is selected for a cover the final image must be 300 dpi and at least 7 inches wide and 5 inches high. Email the file as an attachment to the Editor of the ESA Bulletin at email@example.com. Or send a single 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 photo to the Bulletin. On an accompanying photocopy, give your name, address, a photo legend up to 100 words, and, if the photo describes a paper in ESA or in another journal, the literature citation or title of the accepted manuscript. If you wish unused photos to be returned please include a self-addressed return envelope.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND COMMENTARIES: Please indicate if letters are intended for publication as this is not always obvious. The Bulletin publishes letters, longer commentaries, and philosophical and methodological items related to the science of Ecology. There are no page limits but authors may be asked to edit their submissions for clarity and precision. Previously published items from other sources can be republished in the Bulletin if the contributor obtains permission of the author and the copyright holder, and clearly identifies the original publication.
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS: Submit a brief prose description of the upcoming meeting, including title, a short paragraph on objectives and content, dates, location, registration requirements, and meeting contact persons name, street address, and phone/fax/e-mail address. Please do not submit meeting brochures in the expectation that the Editor will write the prose description; he wont. Compare the publication deadlines above with the meeting deadlines to be sure the announcement will appear in time.
MEETING REVIEWS: The Bulletin publishes reviews of symposia and workshops at the annual ESA meeting, as well as important and appropriate meetings that are unrelated to the annual ESA meeting. The reviewer should strive for a synthetic view of the meeting or symposium outcome, i.e., how the various presentations fit or conflict with each other and with current scientific thought on the topic. Review length is open, although about four double-spaced pages should be enough to capture the essence of most meetings.
The following advisory items are provided to help focus your review.
a) Meeting title, organizer, location, sponsoring organizations?
b) What were the meeting objectives, i.e., what scientific problems was the meeting organized to solve? Who cares (i.e., what was the relevance of this scientific problem to related ones under examination)?
c) How well did the meeting meet the objectives? Were there specific papers delivered or roundtables/discussion groups that were exemplary in reaching the objectives? You may concentrate the review on only the outstanding papers to the exclusion of all others, or give a comprehensive view of all presentations/meeting activities, or examine a selection of papers that neither describes all, nor focuses on a very few.
d) What new was discussed? What previously weak hypotheses were strengthened, confirmed or supported? Were any breakthroughs, or new or innovative hypotheses presented, that forced participants to rethink current concepts?
e) Was there anything else important that the meeting accomplished that may not have been part of its explicit objectives?
f) What subjects relevant to the meeting objectives were missing or left out? Did the scientific components of the problem that were included produce a strong slant or serious void by virtue of blind spots by the organizers, failure of invitees to appear, or similar difficulties?
g) Are there plans for a proceedings issue or meeting summary document, and if so who is editing it, who is publishing it, and when is it planned to appear (i.e., where can interested folks learn more about the meeting?)
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES: Submissions for this section should be sent to the Section Editors in charge of the section: Dr. David Inouye, Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: inouye@.umd.edu; or Dr. Sam Scheiner, Div. of Environmental Biology, Natl. Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
ECOLOGY 101: Submissions should be sent to the Section Editor in charge of this section: Dr. Harold Ornes, College of Sciences, SB 310A, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT 84720. E-mail: email@example.com
ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION K12: Correspondence
and discussions about submissions to this section should be sent to Susan
Barker, Department of Secondary Education, 350 Education South,, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5 Canada. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
(780) 492 5415 Fax: (780) 492 9402
Charles W. (Andy) Anderson, 319A Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA. E-mail: email@example.com
(517) 432-4648 Fax: (517) 432-5092
FOCUS ON FIELD STATIONS: Correspondence and discussions about submissions to this section should be sent to E. A. Johnson, Bulletin Editor-in-Chief, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Albert, T2N 1N4 Canada. Phone (403) 220-7635, Fax (403) 289-9311, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
OBITUARIES AND RESOLUTIONS OF RESPECT: Details of ESA policy are published in the Bulletin, Volume 72(2):157158, June 1991, and are abstracted below. The death of any deceased member will be acknowledged by the Bulletin in an Obituary upon submission of the information by a colleague to the Historical Records Committee. The Obituary should include a few sentences describing the persons history (date and place of birth, professional address and title) and professional accomplishments. Longer Resolutions of Respect, up to three printed pages, will be solicited for all former ESA officers and winners of major awards, or for other ecologists on approval by the President. Solicited Resolutions of Respect will take precedence over unsolicited contributions, and either must be submitted to the Historical Records Committee (see ESA website) before publication in the Bulletin.