
Volume
86, Number 2, April 2005
Cover
Photo: The mosquito Wyeomyia smithii completes its pre-adult development
only in the water-filled leaves of the carnivorous purple pitcher plant, Sarracenia
purpurea. The range of the mosquito follows its host plant from the Gulf
of Mexico to northern Canada. Mosquito populations from 30° to 50° N
subjected to heat or cold stress suffer >40% mortality but no decrease in
fitness (R 0).
Mortality observed as a direct consequence of environmental stress may therefore
have little impact on the individuals actually destined to make the greatest
contribution to the next generation. This photograph and others in the Photo
Gallery were taken by W. E. Bradshaw during research for the article by P. A.
Zani, S. E. T. Swanson, D. Corbin, L. W. Cohnstaedt, M. D. Agotsch, W. E. Bradshaw,
and C. M. Holzapfel, "Geographic variation in tolerance of transient thermal
stress in the mosquito Wyeomyia smithii," to be published in Ecology
Vol. 86 (5):1206-1211, May 2005.
Table of Contents
(click on a title to view that section)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Society Notices
New ESA Officers and Board Members 2005
Candidates for ESA Offices (2006)
Request for Student Award Judges
International Collaborations: Robert H. Whittaker Fellowship
Desert Ecology: Forrest Shreve Student Research Award
SOCIETY ACTIONS
Minutes of the 2526 October 2004 Governing Board Meeting
PHOTO GALLERY
An Unusual Nest William Bradshaw
Cue the Ravens Crow White
Flood Cycles Marian Smith
Complex Dynamics Kailen Mooney
CONTRIBUTIONS
Commentary
An Introduction to Ecological Archives. J. Bain
A
History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 16: Robert Hooke and the Royal Society of London. F. N. Egerton
DEPARTMENTS
Emerging Technologies
Erratum: Improving the Presentation of Results of Logistic Regression with
R.
Ecological Education: K12
Motivating Students to Ask Scientifically Productive Questions. R. E Bohanan, J. Niemi, and L. Wachtel
Society Section and Chapter News
Applied Ecology Section Newsletter
Southeastern Chapter Newsletter
MEETINGS
Calendar
DoD Technical Symposium and Workshop: Threatened, Endangered, and At-Risk Species on DoD and Adjacent Lands
11th Symposium on the Natural History of the Bahamas
Fourth International Symposium on Frugivores and Seed Dispersal
Meeting Review
Enhancing Educational Opportunities at Biological Field Stations and Marine Laboratories J. Hodder
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
http://www.esapubs.org/esapubs/journals/bulletin_main.htm
Bulletin
of the Ecological Society of America, 1707 H Street, NW, Washington DC 20006
Phone (403) 220-7635, Fax (403) 289-9311,
E-mail: bulletin@esa.org
|
Associate
Editor Section
Editor, Ecology 101 |
Section
Editors, Section
Editors, |
The
Ecological Society of America
GOVERNING BOARD FOR 20042005
President: Jerry
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
AIMS
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 |
| <$40,000 | $50.00 | |
| $40,00060,000 | $75.00 | |
| >$60,000 | $95.00 | |
|
Student member:
|
$25.00 | |
| Emeritus member: | Free | |
|
Life
member:
|
Contact Member and Subscriber Services (see below) |
Ecological
Applications $50.00 $40.00
Frontiers in Ecology Free to members
Ecological Archives Free

| ESA 2005 Election Results | Nominations for Fall 2005 ESA Elections | |
|---|---|---|
| The following ESA members have been elected to serve as Society officers, Governing Board members, and committee members.
President ( President-Elect August 2005–August 2006, President August 2006–August 2007, Past-President August 2007–August 2008) Vice President for Public Affairs (August 2005–August 2008) Vice President for Finance (August 2005–August 2008) Member-at Large (August 2005– August 2007) Board of Professional Certification (January 2005–December 2007) |
The following individuals have agreed to appear on the 2005 ballot for a vote in the fall of 2005. Those elected will take office in 2006.
President: Norm Christensen Vice President for Education: Member-at-Large: Jayne Belnap Member-at-Large: Juan J Armesto Members of the Board of Professional Certification (vote for two): Carolyn Hunsaker |
Murray
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: sacchi@kutztown.edu
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.
Name
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Current mailing address _______________________________________________________________________________
June/July mailing address _____________________________________________________________________________
Current telephone Summer telephone ____________________________________________________________________
E-mail Fax __________________________________________________________________________________________
Year M.S. received Year Ph.D received ______________________________________
Areas of expertise (check all that apply):
| Discipline | Research approach (please rank) | Organisms |
|---|---|---|
| Botany Zoology Microbiology Applied ecology |
Population ecology Community ecology Ecosystem ecology |
Vertebrates Types: ________________________________ Invertebrates Types: ________________________________ |
Habitat |
Physiological ecology Behavioral ecology Paleoecology Theoretical ecology Evolutionary ecology |
Plants |
Provide
a few key words or phrases that describe your interests and expertise: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
| International Collaborations: Robert Whittaker Travel Fellowship | Desert Ecology: Forrest Shreve Student Research Award | |
|---|---|---|
| One to two awards annually of $1000–1500 are available to promote active collaboration and exchange of ideas between foreign and U.S.A. ecologists. Awards are given to foreign scientists to help defray the cost of travel to the United States for research collaboration with colleagues.
Requirements: The foreign ecologist must possess an earned doctorate, reside in a foreign country, and not be a U.S. citizen. Application for the fellowship may be made directly by the foreign ecologist or by a U.S. scientist on behalf of a foreign scientist. Either the foreign scientist or the U.S. ecologist must belong to the ESA. Applicants should submit a proposal describing the purpose of the travel, the nature of the research, travel itinerary, and costs. Proposals should not exceed four double-spaced pages for these materials. The foreign ecologist’s CV and a one-page letter of support from the U.S.A. collaborator should be appended; these items are not included in the page limit. Please submit all materials in a single electronic document (either RTF or MS Word format) to wanderso@drury.edu no later than 30 April 2005. |
One to two awards annually of $1000–2000 are available to support research in the hot deserts of North America: Sonora, Mohave, Chihuahua, and Vizcaino. Projects should be clearly ecological and should increase our understanding of the patterns and processes of deserts and/or desert organisms. Proposals should not exceed five double-spaced pages for all material and should include objectives, importance, background, methods, literature cited, and justified budget. Proposals will be ranked based on the importance of the project to understanding desert ecology, feasibility, experimental design, and innovation.
Please submit all materials for either award in a single electronic document (either RTF or MS Word format) to wanderso@drury.edu no later than 30 April 2005. Contact: Dr. Wendy B. Anderson |
SOCIETY ACTIONS |
Members present: Staff present: I. ROLL CALL A) The GB unanimously adopted the proposed agenda. B) There were no votes to ratify.
C) The minutes from 31 July, 1 August, and 6 August 2004 were unanimously adopted. II. REPORTS A) Report of President Melillo
B) Report of Executive Director McCarter and the Office Staff
C) Report of Vice President for Finance Christensen 1) First Quarter Financials look healthy, according to Katherine. The Annual Meeting did very well (might be the top meeting for income to date). This is due in part to a trial policy whereby the abstract submission fee was not refunded or credited toward the cost of registration (generating about $90,000). Next year, credit card numbers will be taken, but no charge will be made unless the submitter withdraws. 2) Norm Christensen reports that the Society investments are mostly flat. 3) The staff and VP for Finance recommend pursuing the idea of hiring a development professional to work with ESA. This idea will be pursued with the goal of making a presentation to the Board at the spring meeting. There is general support for the idea of a professional fund-raiser. III. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS A) Publications issues 1) Data sharing a) Data sharing statement (Baldwin/Duke) The meeting of 12 scientific societies hosted by ESA went very well and included representatives from Chile and England. Bill Michener and David Baldwin were ESA representatives. Clarification of terms was an important achievement (e.g., What is a data set? Are herbarium sheets and soil samples data? What is a data registry?—like a phone book. What is a data center?—a place where metadata and data are stored). A near-term strategy will be to establish an editorial policy for scientific journals. The meeting attendees proposed a statement to be considered by each group’s governing body: “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.” The ESA Governing Board developed a revision of this statement that will be reviewed by the Publications Committee before being placed in ESA journals. “The editors and publisher of this journal expect authors to make the data underlying published articles available.” NSF may be the driving force behind this, at least for grantees, but editors could also carry a big stick by eventually enforcing a data-sharing policy for authors. National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII; a broad, collaborative program to provide increased access to data and information on the nation’s biological resources) might be interested in helping with development of a registry and repository. Perhaps ESA could help to effect a cultural change in ideas about the importance and value of data archiving by publishing a paper with examples of how historical data have facilitated newer studies, or how the lack of such data has removed opportunities for potentially valuable follow-up studies. b) Data registry proposal Jim Reichman asked the Board to begin discussion about creating a data registry for ESA members and for contributors to ESA journals, using technology currently being developed. The Board, after extensive discussion of Reichman’s proposal, concluded that they were not yet ready to endorse a specific proposal for a data registry. Several groups are pursuing related initiatives and ESA sees the need to bring these groups together to discuss strategy and ensure that any ESA effort is inclusive. Nancy Grimm, David Inouye, and Margaret Palmer, working with David Baldwin and Cliff Duke, will form an ad hoc committee to coordinate ESA activities related to the data sharing. Jim Reichman will be invited to join that group. Jim Reichman has contacted the Board already about issues related to online publications and the impact of open access, and recommends that a group be named to provide background material for the Board. He has asked the Board for some funding to facilitate this, and the Board approves unanimously the idea of using the contingency funding from the budget for this purpose. President Melillo will work with Jim to appoint the task force. 3) Frontiers program review
4) Journal mission statements The Editors-in-Chief were asked by the Board to provide mission statements that might be a first step toward the upcoming review of publications. The Publications Committee has reviewed them and suggests that a uniform format would be useful. The Board agrees, and will ask (via a memo to be drafted by Jerry Melillo) that the EICs revise their statements for the next Board meeting. One alternative is that there be an overall umbrella statement about the Society’s suite of journals, followed by more detailed information about individual publications. 5) Pease letter response Jerry has drafted a response to the letter sent to Board members by Dr. Craig Pease concerning editorial practices and policies of Frontiers. Sue will contact Mr. Rohrman asking him to remain as a columnist, but to resign as a member of the advisory board in order to remove any perception of a conflict of interest. 1) Public information campaign The ESA staff had a meeting on this topic. Nadine Lymn reported on some specific actions the Society might take, how to assess those efforts, and suggestions for people the Society might ask to become involved. The goal (#2) that seems to best match the Board’s intentions is (slightly modified): “Increase within 5 years public understanding of the essential role of ecological systems to the well-being of all people.” The Board will seek advice from some organizations that have run public information campaigns related to the environment; candidate organizations include Environmental Defense, WWF, SeaWeb, NASA, British Petroleum, Toyota, Weyerhauser, and UCS. Staff and a subset of Board members will organize a half-day meeting in late February with about five of these organizations to learn from their experiences. Questions to ask these organizations might include the following: How to identify a target audience? What is the best topic area to begin with? What are the elements of a campaign? What are creative ideas for addressing the audience? Are there examples of successful campaigns such as this? What advertising firms would you use? What would it cost and how might we raise the resources needed for the campaign? How do you measure success? Nadine Lymn reported on the roster of ESA members who have been invited (most of whom have accepted). Roll-out will be early in the spring, with two Congressional luncheon meetings. 3) International actions Our next annual meeting in Montreal will be international in perspective, as will our special meeting in Merida, Mexico in January of 2006. The theme of the Mexico meeting is “Ecology in an Era of Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities for Environmental Scientists in the Americas,” and the planning committee is being led by Dr. Jose Sarukhan and Dr. Jeff Herrick. Cliff and Ellen will go to Merida this winter to look at hotels and venues for the meeting. Possible funding sources for meeting support are being contacted. Some SEEDS students would be a logical addition to that meeting. Osvaldo is working with Katherine to pursue support for ESA of a Federation of the Americas group of ecological societies. The Federation should play an important role in the Mexico meeting. Katherine met in August with the Vice President of the Ecological Society of Australia to explore possible cooperation in the future. C. Education issues 1) Leveraging SEEDS 2) Women and Minorities in Ecology (WAMIE) update Carol Brewer reports that the final report is on schedule for November. A survey will occur next year to generate a new Profiles of Society members (following up on the 1992 publication). D. Issues for future annual meetings; 2006 Annual Meeting theme The proposal, “Icons and Upstarts: Maintaining an Ecological Balance,” is innovative. The Board suggests dropping or replacing the part of the title after the colon. The Program Chair and Meetings Committee will be asked to consider these comments and bring back a final recommendation. E. NEON update Carol Brewer reported on progress, which includes AIBS having received funding from NSF to serve in an organizational role. F. Science Program review (Shaver/Duke) 1) Vice-President for Science Gus Shaver presented an outline of his vision for the Science Office during his tenure, and questions for the Governing Board to consider in its review.
2) Cliff Duke presented information on the history of the office (initiated in 1992 in the form of the SBI Project Office, then became the Science Programs Office in 1997). The existing structure and goals are outlined in the Bylaws; in short, the Office promotes the integration of ecological science into management and decision-making by government agencies and the private sector at all levels. Although the Science Office produces educational publications (e.g., Issues in Ecology, the regional climate change reports) it does not engage with students and educators in the way Education does. Nor does it engage with legislators and Congressional staff in the way that Public Affairs does. Current projects include:
Projects in development include:
As noted previously, the proposed new agenda for the Science Office has three components:
A high-priority item for action on this agenda is combining and reforming the SBI and Research committees into a single Science Committee to advise and support Science Office projects. Others include leading international outreach activities, and developing activities to examine and articulate the intellectual foundations for a new sustainability science. 1) Draft a new Bylaw statement about the Science Office, and prepare a proposal to delete the existing SBI office Bylaw, to be voted on at the Council meeting next summer. 2) Write a Bylaw about the new Science committee that reflects the merging of the Research and SBI committees, also for presentation at the Council meeting in Montreal, and discussion at the May Governing Board meeting. 3) Go through the list of people on the two current committees (Research and SBI), write to the individuals to see who is willing to stay on, and identify a few new members who will be useful in implementing the new SO agenda. 4) Prepare a Supplementary Session proposal on sustainability science for the Montreal meeting by 1 Dec. 5) Prepare proposals to NBII and NSF, as described previously, and move forward on planning and implementation of support for Visions initiatives and international outreach efforts. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1) Nominations for ESA awards are due soon and suggestions should be sent to the Awards Committee. 2) Bill Schlesinger provided an update on nominations for Board members, officers, and committees for fall 2005. Respectfully submitted
|
Photo
Gallery
(all rights reserved,
used by permission)
click on a photo below for a larger image
Click on photos for a larger image.
|
Human alteration of natural flood cycles is an important perturbation to floodplain plants. We report a demographic analysis of Boltonia decurrens, an endangered plant in the floodplains of the Illinois River. Navigation dams and levees have drastically altered the timing and severity of flooding over the past century. These changes reduce the population growth rate (deterministic and stochastic) of Boltonia and change the life history pathways responsible for its population growth. |
Click on photo for a larger image.
Contributions![]() |
|---|
Progress in the ecological sciences results when researchers build on well-documented data, and with relatively recent advances in technology it is now possible to preserve and make available a wide range of data, metadata, and other supplemental materials associated with research in ecology. In 1997, acting on recommendations of the Special Committee on Data Archiving and Sharing, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) established a fully electronic data archive, Ecological Archives, as a means for contributing and exchanging data as well as for data preservation. Shortly thereafter the online publishing of appendices, supplements, and data papers associated with ESA journals began. By January 2005, well over 600 published articles in Ecology, Ecological Monographs, or Ecological Applications included digital archives. In 2004 alone, among the three journals a total of 382 appendices and 24 supplements were posted.
The archives currently reside on a server in ESA’s Publications Office in Ithaca, New York. Detailed instructions for creating and submitting the files as well as citation and usage information may be found at ‹esapubs.org/archive›. The archives are indexed by first-author name and by the journal issue where the “parent” paper was published (Fig. 1). Each appendix, supplement, and data paper has a unique accession number by which the associated print article or abstract in the journals is linked to the archive materials (see Fig. 2). Thus, one click of the mouse can take you from the online versions of the journal articles directly to the associated archives. Or, one can access the archives directly with a web browser at ‹http://esapubs.org/archive› and use the accession number at the end of the articles in the print journals to find particular files. Ecological Archives offer several benefits to our readership and to authors: |
![]() Fig. 1. An index page by journal issue in Ecological Archives. |
Appendices To date, the most frequently published archive files are appendices. These are similar in content to those that have appeared in the print journals, but are self-contained and directly viewable with a standard web browser. If an appendix includes sound or video, then those files are directly executable. The appendices can comprise tables, figures, and photographs, as well as descriptions of statistical analyses. Examples of appendices include ANOVA tables and details of sampling methodology and model development. See Fig. 3 for a sample appendix page or browse the Ecological Archives web pages. We require that the bulk of appendices be in HTML in order to guarantee universal availability. Templates in HTML are available for downloading to assist authors with appendix preparation. Judicious use of digital appendices helps authors meet the requirement for concise papers (see ‹http://esapubs.org/esapubs/EICNote1.htm›). |
Fig. 2. An example of accession number links in the print journals. |
Supplements Supplements are distinguished from appendices in that these are more likely to be downloaded and used rather than viewed. Supplements cover a range of file types, including original raw data, derived data sets, model source code, and statistical software. By submitting supplements to Ecological Archives, authors facilitate new analyses of their data, data validation, and development of critical software. Appropriate metadata (information about the data) are required in order to understand and re-use the data correctly and must be provided in a standard format. Data files should be submitted as delimited ASCII files and software must include the source code. Templates are available to help authors in submitting supplements ‹http://www.esapubs.org/archive/ |
Fig. 3 Example of a single appendix posted in Ecological Archives. |
Data papers
Data papers constitute a third category of archives. These are compilations and syntheses of data sets and associated metadata that are peer-reviewed and considered valuable to the scientific community. For example, the Data Paper by Smith et al. (2003) is a compilation of body mass data for mammals worldwide for the purpose of investigating patterns of body mass across geographic and taxonomic space and evolutionary time. After passing peer review, data papers are announced in abstract form in Ecology. The accession number printed with the abstract is directly linked to the data paper in Ecological Archives. |
Fig. 4. Example of a single supplement page posted in Ecological Archives. |
The data for data papers should be logically and consistently formatted. Fixed-format, tab-delimited, comma-delimited, or space-delimited ASCII is the preferred format for tabular data. Rasterized digital geospatial data should be submitted in IDRISI- or ERDAS-compatible formats; vectorized geospatial data should be submitted in ARC/INFO export format. For other types of data, consult the Ecological Archives ‹Data Editor›. Multiple files should be compressed and submitted together as self-extracting .ZIP or .TAR files. Synthetic data (e.g., figures) are allowed but may not substitute for raw data in data papers; such synthetic results normally should be placed within the accompanying metadata text.
The metadata for data papers fully describe the content, context, quality, and structure of the data. The metadata ideally should be submitted in a single HTML file, and the content should adhere strictly to the Ecological Archives metadata content standards derived from Michener et al. (1997). Although formal metadata content standards for Ecological Archives will continue to evolve, useful examples are available at ‹http://esapubs.org/archive›. Text portions of the metadata should generally adhere to ESA print journal guidelines. Data papers are peer-reviewed and are evaluated with respect to their contribution to ecological science, originality, quality of the metadata, soundness of the database, consistency, and completeness. It is especially important that the metadata be clear and comprehensive, enabling those that did not create the database to understand, interpret, and re-use the data. See ‹http://www.esapubs.org/archive/archive_D.htm› for examples. Conclusion Literature cited Acknowledgments |
A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 16: Robert Hooke and the Royal Society of LondonAlthough the versatile Robert Hooke (1635–1703) was not an “early ecologist,” he made enough innovations and discoveries essential for the prehistory of ecology to merit our consideration. For too long, he was overshadowed by his formidable rival, Isaac Newton, but now there are four excellent biographies of Hooke: ‘Espinasse (1956) provides a brief overview, Drake (1996) provides a geological perspective on his life and career, and Inwood (2002) and Jardine (2004) provide detailed account of all aspects of his life. Another volume written by Bennett, Cooper, Hunter, and Jardine (2003) celebrates Hooke’s life and work on the 300th anniversary of his death. Finally, Nichols’ is a pleasant, brief study of Hooke’s relations with the Royal Society (1999), but it lacks the sophistication of Pumfrey’s article on the subject (1991). All of these books are well illustrated. A useful biographical article provides additional references (Pugliese 2004). Hooke was born on the scenic Isle of Wight, two miles south of England’s mainland, and as a child he was fascinated by both its geological formations and its fossil shells. His preacher father died when he was 13, and he was apprenticed to a London artist. He had the talent to become an artist, but paint fumes affected him adversely, and so he was sent to Westminster School, where the headmaster, Dr. Richard Busby, recognized his genius and provided him not only with a solid academic education, but also had him trained as an instrument maker (Jardine 2004:63). In 1653 Hooke entered Oxford University and soon became Robert Boyle’s laboratory assistant. He built an air pump for Boyle, and Hooke used it himself to demonstrate the hypothesis that became known as Boyle’s Law (1662). The Royal Society of London for Promoting Natural Knowledge was founded in 1660 and received a royal charter (but no money) from Charles II. The Society soon had 115 members (Stimson 1948:51), although only about 20 were active (Inwood 2002). It was inspired by and organized with the writings of Sir Francis Bacon in mind (Purver 1967:235–236). In 1662 Hooke became its curator, responsible for three or four experiments or demonstrations at each weekly meeting. This was an unrealistic expectation, but he came closer than anyone else could have done. By 1664 the Royal Society decided to pay him a modest annual stipend. In 1665 he became Professor of Geometry at Gresham College, and the Royal Society met often in his rooms there. His book, Micrographia: or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies made by Magnifying Glasses (1665) contains 9 months of his experiments and demonstrations. He used a commercial microscope, probably from instrument-maker Richard Reeve (Simpson 1989:37–41). His most famous observations and illustrations in it are of plant cells, which he discovered and named (Hooke 1961:112–116). |
|
Fig. 1. Hooke’s compound microscope. |
He illustrated cells in cork and charcoal and said he had also seen them in at least eight other kinds of plants, possibly including moss, since his illustration of it shows cells in the leaves (Hooke 1961:facing p.131, Richards 1981:141, Harris 1999:4–7). Equally important, if less well known, was his discovery of microorganisms (Bardell 1988). He put some grains of sand under his microscope and discovered that one of them resembled a minute water snail shell, and he concluded it was a fossil shell (Hooke 1961:80–81, illustration facing p.44). He did not name what are now called foraminifera. Hooke intentionally investigated two familiar substances that turned out to be plant growths (at a time when fungi were considered plants). For several summers he had observed that the green leaves of damask roses became “all bespecked with yellow stains, and the undersides…have small black spots in the midst of these yellow ones, which to the naked eye, appear’d no bigger than the point of a Pin.” (Hooke 1961:121). |
|---|---|
He examined them under his microscope and saw “several small yellow knobs…out of which I perceiv’d there sprung multitudes of little cases or black bodies like Seed-cods [pods],” though he was unable to see any “seeds.” He had discovered, but did not name, the rose rust (Phragmidium mucronatum) (Ainsworth 1976:59). He suspected, despite his speculation about seeds, that these were simple moss or mold “which is set a moving by the putrifactive and fermentative heat, joyn’d with that of the ambient aerial” and so grows by the “same Principle, I imagine the Misleto of Oaks, Thorns, Appletrees, and other Trees, to have its original . . . seldom or never growing on any of these Trees, till they begin to wax decrepid . . . .”
|
|
| Next, he investigated mold from a leather book cover and saw what seemed to be minute mushrooms. His illustration shows what are now called sporangiphores with sporangia. He speculated the latter might be seed cases, though he had never found seeds in mushrooms, “which seem to depend upon a convenient constitution of the matter out of which they are made, and a concurrence of either natural or artificial heat.” (Hooke 1961:127). He smelled and tasted the mold and found it disagreeable. The microscope enabled him to raise the question of whether microscopic plants reproduce by “seeds,” but he did not pursue this investigation long enough to find out—so many other experiments to perform. |
Fig. 2. Top: Mucor. Bottom: Phragmidium mucronatum (Hooke 1961: facing p.125). |
| He then studied moss, which is visible to the naked eye, though its fine structures are best studied under a microscope. He easily identified its seed case, which was solid before it ripened, but after it grew bigger a hole appeared, out of which seeds probably fell, since later the seed cases were hollow. Although he failed to find any moss seeds, he assumed they existed, but even so, he remained uncertain about whether moss could also arise “out of corruption, without any disseminated seed . . . .” (Hooke 1961:131–132). The four specimens on his plate XIII are well drawn, though they inadvertently came from two or three different species, and there is some mismatch between the letters on the drawings and the discussion in his text. Despite these minor confusions, Hooke gave “an excellent account of the structure of the moss, with a surprising amount of detail.” (Richards 1981:142).
When he turned to insects, he commented that a large fly (such as the blue fly, Calliphora erythrocephala, he illustrated) at one time lays 400–500 eggs, and their numbers would increase prodigiously “were they not prey’d on by multitudes of Birds, and destroy’d by Frosts and Rains,” which led him to conclude that the absence of climatic checks causes the tropics to be “infested with such multitudes of Locusts, and such other Vermine.” (Hooke 1961:182). He concluded from watching blue flies that they were stimulated by putrefying meat to lay their eggs on it. |
Fig. 3. Mosquito larva and pupa (Hooke |
| His most detailed insect study was on mosquitoes, which he called water-insects or gnats. The name “mosquito” was in use by 1665, but it was borrowed from Spanish to refer to small American flies. Our distinction between biting mosquitoes and nonbiting gnats only gained common usage about 1900 (Christophers 1960:1–2). Hooke observed them in the aquatic stage, which he though was generated in rainwater (presumably by spontaneous generation). He was fascinated by their shape and motion, and perhaps because of this fascination, he discovered after two or three weeks that they metamorphosed into gnats, “leaving their husks behind them in the water floating under the surface. . . .” (Hooke 1961:187). He described the process in detail because he had “not found that any Author has observ’d the like; and because the thing it self is so strange. . . .” He described two adults, guessing correctly their sex, though his larval stage (Fig. 3) is Culex and his adults (Hooke 1961:facing pages 193 and 195) are Chironomus (Bodenheimer 1928–1929, II:368; Christophers 1960:4). In the interest of science, he let a mosquito bite his hand and watched it suck his blood and “fill its belly as full as it could hold, making it appear very red and transparent…” (Hooke 1961:195).
Power (1945) argues that some of Hooke’s most striking illustrations were made by his lifelong friend and colleague, Sir Christopher Wren (1632–1723). Architect–scientist Wren had developed the techniques of drawing microscopic subjects, and the Royal Society had asked him to make insect drawings for Charles II. It was only because Wren had more compelling demands on his time that Hooke took up the project. In the preface to Micrographia Hooke praised Wren without specifically attributing any of the drawings to him. Power suspects that plates illustrating the head of a “drone fly,” a flea, and a louse (plates XXIV, XXXIV, and XXXV) are Wren’s, and possibly also plate XXXVI on two mites. Drawings of the fly head, flea, and louse are all gigantic; the flea, at 16.5 inches (43.5 cm) long, is surely the largest insect drawing in the scientific literature. It is ironic that Hooke published a large illustration of a flea in the very year that a plague epidemic struck London, killing almost 100,000. The Royal Society was alerted to the epidemic’s seriousness from the published bills of mortality and suspended its meetings in late June. Charles II also fled the city for safer climes (Gregg 1978:9–11). No one, of course, made the connection between the rat flea (Nosophyllus fasciatus) and the plague. |
|
Fig. 4. Flea (now called the dog flea, Pulex irritans) |
Hooke observed a louse sucking blood after fasting for two days; presumably it was his blood, as it had been with the mosquito he observed. He found that the louse was “so greedy, that though it could not contain more, yet it continued sucking as fast as ever, and as fast emptying it self behind…” (Hooke 1961:213).
Since Hooke was uncertain about the possibility of spontaneous generation in small organisms, it is interesting that he discovered the eggs of mites. The mites themselves were barely visible to the naked eye, yet he undoubtedly found their eggs. He estimated that a mite is only one-hundredth of an inch thick, which means that there would be a million in a cubic inch, yet their eggs are only a 400th or 500th the size of the adult. “Notwithstanding which minuteness a good Microscope discovers those small moveable specks to be very prettily shap’d Insects, each of them furnish’d with eight well shap’d and proportion’d legs…” (Hooke 1961:213–214). He believed that a mite |
But then again, he says, maybe they all come from eggs! The illustrations in Micrographia inspired the Dutchman Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) to begin sending his own findings to the Royal Society in 1673. Leeuwenhoek could not read the English text, but may have had help from someone who could (Jardine 1993:314). Hooke often repeated Leeuwenhoek’s investigations for the Society and sometimes added his own comments (Hooke 1968, Inwood 2002, Jardine 2004). In 1692 Hooke expressed regret that, although there had been other microscopists in the 1660s to 1680s, Leeuwenhoek was the only one still publishing scientific observations. He could not return to the subject himself because of declining eyesight (Hooke 1967:262, Wilson 1995:226). Hooke’s, and the Royal Society’s, interests were quite broad, and he easily wandered into other fields. In an effort to show the practical importance of science, both he and the Royal Society investigated various aspects of seafaring and navigation. Little was know about the oceans, and he thought sea captains might be willing to undertake some investigations if provided with equipment and a program. He invented a depth sounder and water sampler (described 30 September 1663) that might provide useful data. The former determined depths deeper than was possible by dropping a weighted line. It consisted of a larger hollow ball linked to a smaller solid metal ball by a clasp that opened when the solid ball struck the bottom, allowing the hollow ball to rise to the surface. One estimated depth by the time lapsed between dropping both balls into the water and the reappearance of the hollow ball. It was never widely used because it was an inconvenient device and because sailors were uninterested in great depths. However, his water sampler was commonly used by oceanographers in the 1700s and 1800s. It was “a square bucket with upper and lower hinged lids which opened upwards as it was lowered through the water on a weighted bracket” (Wolf 1950:117–119, Bennett et al. 2003:76–77). As one pulled the sampler back up, the lids closed automatically, enclosing the water sample. |
|
| Hooke, at the suggestion of the Royal Society in September 1663, began to keep daily weather records, and thereby founded the regular investigation of weather which he hoped would lead to weather prediction (Inwood 2002:43, Bennett et al. 2003:77–80). The subject stimulated his inventive genius, leading him to invent or improve all five basic meteorological instruments: barometer, thermometer, hygroscope, rain gauge, and wind gauge (‘Espinasse 1956:50).
But making one of each was not enough for Hooke; he was always thinking up better versions of his instruments, which explains why the indexes of Middleton’s histories of the barometer, thermometer, and weather instruments (1964, 1966, 1969), have longer entries under “Hooke” than for any other investigator-inventor. Not only did he invent the instruments, he also developed and printed a meteorological form on which to record the data (Hooke 1958, Wolf 1950:308–313). From the start, he and the Royal Society realized that any scientific study of weather required both a uniform set of records and a standard set of instruments (Patterson 1953). However, science was not yet well enough organized for these insights to be widely implemented. That would take another two centuries. |
Fig. 5. Wheel-barometer, hygrometer, and wind gauge |
Fig. 6. Hooke's rain-gauge
Fig. 7. Hooke's self-recording weather |
The kind of seaman-investigator whom the Royal Society longed for eventually appeared—the remarkable William Dampier (1652–1715). It seems unlikely that the Royal Society influenced him before his first voyage around the world (early 1679–September 1691), during which he collected valuable information on geography, ocean currents, prevailing winds, people, animals, and plants. After he returned, however, he discussed his findings with Hooke and the Royal Society (Preston and Preston 2004:230–235), and those discussions undoubtedly increased his sophistication when he was writing A New Voyage Round the World (Hooke 1697). It was the most important travel book since Marco Polo’s Travels (which appeared about 1300). After it appeared, Hooke (1697) summarized it for the Royal Society.
Robert Hooke, son of a clergyman, was a pious Christian as well as a brilliant scientist, yet he thought many students of Earth history exaggerated the importance of Noah’s flood to account for geological strata. From a modern perspective, we could say that he, in turn, exaggerated the importance of earthquakes to account for the same strata. But that was a small mistake when compared with his sophisticated approach to geology and Earth history. He studied and theorized on the shape of the earth, the wandering of the poles, cyclic terrestrial processes, fossil formation, and subterraneous eruptions and earthquakes causing changes from land to sea (Hooke 1996:96). He was one of the earliest defenders of the idea that fossils represent the remains of once living beings. His reason was simple: there is no other adequate explanation. Nevertheless, he had to argue the point with colleagues in the Royal Society who defended the idea of a “plastic virtue” in the earth that could produce fossils (Rudwick 1985:53–56, Rapport 1997:106). His claims about fossils were based on observations going back to his boyhood on the fossil-rich Isle of Wight. He was especially fascinated by what he called “snail-stones” or “snake-stones,” now called ammonites. |
| These were much larger than any known living species, though he compared them with the chambered nautilus, which he illustrated as cut in half along the spiral axis (Hooke 1971:281–285, Drake 1996:161–167, Jardine 2004:37–42). The only way he could account for fossils that do not resemble living species was to assume that species must change over time (Drake 1996:97–103). If species change, then fossils might indicate the chronology of the world (Rossi 1984:12–17, Drake 1996:233, 304). When he was informed that the Danish physician Niels (or Nicolaus) Stensen (or Steno) shared his perspectives, instead of welcoming the support, he wondered if someone had secretly sent his own ideas to Stensen (Cutler 2003:130–138). Hooke’s thoughts on fossils were published posthumously. | |
Fig. 8. Form for a weather report (Hooke 1958: 179). |
|
Robert Hooke was active in the Royal Society for 40 years, during its golden age. His own most important contributions came in his earlier years in the Society, when the standards and traditions of modern science were developing. After his death, Sir Isaac Newton became president of the Royal Society, yet in the 1700s the Society mostly continued along the paths blazed in the later 1600s. The loss of Hooke’s portrait contributed to his being overshadowed by Newton. Some historians have wondered if Newton permitted it to disappear when the Royal Society moved from Gresham College after Hooke’s death. Lisa Jardine has a different answer to the mystery: a picture clearly mislabeled “John Ray” is the long-lost portrait of Hooke (Jardine 2004:17). Acknowledgments Frank N. Egerton |
|
DEPARTMENTS
Erratum: Improving the Presentation of Results of Logistic Regression In the Emerging Technologies section of the January 2005 issue, ESA Bulletin (Volume 85, No. 1, p. 42), the article, “Improving the presentation of the results of logistic regression with R,” contained an incorrect version of Fig. 3, “Fitted logistic Gaussian regression curve . . . .” The correct version appears below.
Fig. 3. Fitted logistic Gaussian regression curve with dit plots and box plots |
|---|
|
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.
Our first contribution to this column is about “Motivating students to ask scientifically productive questions,” and is presented by Robert E. Bohanan, Kevin J. Niemi, and Lisa Wachtel of the University of Wisconsin, and the Madison Metropolitan School District. This contribution is particularly welcome, because encouraging students to construct appropriate questions from their observations of the natural world can often be hard work for the teacher! It thus meets entirely the purpose of this column—sharing good practice to help improve ecological education in schools. So please keep contributions coming; if you have any questions, thoughts, or contributions please contact: |
|
| Susan Barker Department of Secondary Education 350 Education South, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5 Canada E-mail: susan.barker@ualberta.ca (780) 492 5415 Fax: (780) 492 9402 |
Charles W. (Andy) Anderson 319A Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 USA E-mail: andya@msu.edu (517) 432-4648 Fax: (517) 432-5092 |
Motivating Students to Ask Scientifically Productive Questions
|
|
Application (Using scientific patterns and theories to describe, explain, predict, design, and make personal and social decisions). Adapted from C. W. (Andy) Anderson, National Association of Research in Science Teaching Presidential Address (2003). |
|
|---|---|
Our case study (Lucas et al. 2005) was part of a district-wide middle school science professional development project, SchoolYard Science, in Madison, Wisconsin, to improve inquiry-based teaching and learning using habitats at or near schools (see ‹http://www.wisc.edu/cbe/cbe_pubs/schoolyardsciencemodel.ppt› for background). The case study was on a year-long field and classroom investigation of aquatic systems in a 6th grade classroom. The teacher (Lucas) was a former elementary school teacher who had recently moved to a middle school and was teaching science for the first time in her career. Her goal was to have her students engaged in small groups in scientifically productive (e.g., scientifically testable) investigations of their own questions. Scientists, science educators, and learning scientists collaborated with the teacher to create an overarching context for research under which students then developed their own related small-group inquiry projects. The overarching context was investigation of aquatic systems. In this particular classroom, the specific context was a study of aquatic systems that combined field observations (a pond near their school) and laboratory investigations (gallon jar microcosms). Scientists provided relevant research vignettes, access to existing data, and other types of background on aquatic systems to add science content for the teacher and students, and they advised on the research design of student inquiry projects. Science educators worked with the teacher to develop classroom practices (e.g., integration of model-based reasoning by students) and instructional materials (e.g., problem-based materials) to support student investigations. Learning scientists helped to design assessment instruments (e.g., rubrics for analyzing student work) and approaches (e.g., observations and interviews) to study change in student learning. At the beginning of the case study, we quickly learned that it was very challenging for students to ask scientifically productive questions. After an initial observation of a pair of small urban sediment detention ponds within walking distance of the school, students individually generated a list of 10 questions of interest. We list several examples of these questions below in Table 1. *Table 1. Questions posed by sixth-grade students after initial pond observations.
As you can see, most of these, as written, were not scientifically testable. To facilitate the refinement of their questions, we asked students to develop criteria for what they thought made one question a better scientific question than another. The initial criteria to evaluate their questions are listed in Table 2. *Table 2. Initial criteria developed by students for what makes a good scientific question.
To expand on their initial notions of what made one question a better scientific question than another, we asked students to identify the sources and types of evidence that they would need to provide at the end of their investigation in order to present a convincing argument or explanation. The result of this discussion was a group revision of criteria that they accepted as a class for what made a good scientific question. These are summarized in Table 3 below. *Table 3. Revised criteria developed by students for what makes a good scientific question after connecting questions and evidence.
Through a combination of analysis of student work, transcripts of group discussion, and interviews with individual students, we found that the trajectory of evidence-based reasoning in arguments and explanations generally began with personal beliefs, and by the end of the school year, included careful documentation of empirical results. Transcripts of classroom discussions, analysis of student work, and individual interviews with students that reflect changes in their thinking about evidence are summarized in Table 4. Conclusions from the case study are summarized in Table 5. *Table 4. Change in student thinking about evidence.
| |