[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Ecolog Job List
Howdy-
Some interesting internships/study programs/jobs offered on this list. Again, if you haven't done so I recommend subscribing to the list to see what's out there.
Chris Hohnholt
School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science
Michigan Technological University
906 487-2417
forest.mtu.edu
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "ECOLOG-L automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ECOLOG-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:00:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 9 Dec 2008 to 10 Dec 2008 (#2008-338)
There are 7 messages totalling 483 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Summer Undergarduate Research Opportunities 2009
2. Economic Growth
3. Job Posting: CPB Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
4. Postdoctoral position in community ecology
5. post-doctoral position available
6. Jobs: Three Postdoctoral Positions in Ecology
7. Big lesson on growth politics at NCSE conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:22:24 -0500
From: John D Wehr <wehr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Summer Undergarduate Research Opportunities 2009
Paid Summer Ecology Internships for Undergraduates=20
The Calder Summer Undergraduate Research (CSUR) Program - 2009
The Louis Calder Center - Biological Field Station of Fordham University =
has a select number of paid research opportunities for undergraduate =
students in our Calder Summer Undergraduate Research (CSUR) program. =
The CSUR program will run from May 25th through August 15th, 2009.=20
- Students will work out of our field station, which is equipped with =
state-of-the-art laboratories, which are in close proximity to forest, =
field and aquatic ecosystems.=20
- Some student projects will include collaborations with scientists at =
the Wildlife Conservation Society and the New York Botanical Garden.
- This year we will offer approximately ten awards to qualified =
undergraduates interested in conducting independent research. =20
- Stipends of $4,800 plus a travel reimbursement will be awarded to =
successful applicants, and rent at the field station is free. =20
- Limited funds are available to support research and local travel. =20
A sample of some of the potential student projects for 2006 includes:
- Acoustic and Visual Enrichment for Chilean Flamingoes=20
- Algal biodiversity in streams along an urban-to-rural land-use =
gradient
- Biological control of arthropods that transmit disease
- Bloom-forming cyanobacteria in lakes of Central Park, New York
- Climate change and gene flow in an annual plant
- Hoot Song Function in the Stripe-throated Wren
- Impact of an invasive species on local mosquito species
- The evolution of transposable elements in bacterial pathogens
- The cascading effects of an invasive plant
- The food web of temporary forest ponds
- Urbanization and habitat fragmentation influences on dynamics of =
wildlife disease
- Urbanization effects on plants, their symbionts, and ecosystem =
processes
Successful candidates will be matched with scientists with similar =
research interests. Core program activities include the design and =
execution of independent, closely mentored research projects, and =
participation in mini-courses and weekly seminars. Through these =
activities, students will learn the fundamentals of experimental design, =
use of the scientific literature, data collection and analysis, and oral =
presentation.
- For details on the program and a list of research areas available this =
summer for students, see:=20
www.fordham.edu/REUatCalder
- You can also contact us by email at: REUatCalder@xxxxxxxxxxx, or by =
phone: 914-273-3078, ext. 10.
** Applications are due February 15, 2007 **
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:06:19 -0600
From: the Chruscielskis <kcmail@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Economic Growth
WHAT POLITICIANS DARE NOT SAY
From: New Scientist (pg. 42), Oct. 18, 2008
By Tim Jackson
Scratch the surface of free-market capitalism and you discover
something close to visceral fear. Recent events provide a good
example: the US treasury's extraordinary $800 billion rescue package
was an enormous comfort blanket designed to restore confidence in the
ailing financial markets. By forcing the taxpayer to pick up the
"toxic debts" that plunged the system into crisis, it aims to protect
our ability to go on behaving similarly in the future. This is a
short-term and deeply regressive solution, but economic growth must be
protected at all costs.
As economics commissioner on the UK's Sustainable Development
Commission, I found this response depressingly familiar. At the launch
last year of our "Redefining Prosperity" project (which attempts to
instil some environmental and social caution into the relentless
pursuit of economic growth), a UK treasury official stood up and
accused my colleagues and I of wanting to "go back and live in caves".
After a recent meeting convened to explore how the UK treasury's
financial policies might be made more sustainable, a high-ranking
official was heard to mutter: "Well, that is all very interesting,
perhaps now we can get back to the real job of growing the economy."
"A UK treasury official accused me of wanting to go back to cave
living"
The message from all this is clear: any alternative to growth remains
unthinkable, even 40 years after the American ecologists Paul Ehrlich
and John Holdren made some blindingly obvious points about the
arithmetic of relentless consumption.
The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of
human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size
of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income
per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the
impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.
Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under
7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per
person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per
thousand dollars of GDP -- in other words, every $1000 worth of goods
and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of
CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7
billion � 8 � 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that
to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a reasonably
safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2
emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global
population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this
century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than
0.6 tonnes per person -- considerably lower than in India today. The
conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy
efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth
taking a serious hit. Can this really work?
With today's global income, achieving the necessary carbon footprint
would mean getting the T factor for CO2 down to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per
thousand US dollars -- a fivefold improvement. While that is no walk
in the park, it is probably doable with state-of-the-art technology
and a robust policy commitment. There is one big thing missing from
this picture, however: economic growth. Factor it in, and the idea
that technological ingenuity can save us from climate disaster looks
an awful lot more challenging.
First, let us suppose that the world economy carries on as usual. GDP
per capita will grow at a steady 2 or 3 per cent per year in developed
countries, while the rest of the world tries to catch up -- China and
India leaping ahead at 5 to 10 per cent per year, at least for a
while, with Africa languishing in the doldrums for decades to come. In
this (deeply inequitable) world, to meet the IPCC target we would have
to push the carbon content of consumption down to less than 0.03
tonnes for every thousand US dollars spent -- a daunting 11-fold
reduction on the current western European average.
Now, let's suppose we are serious about eradicating global poverty.
Imagine a world whose 9 billion people can all aspire to a level of
income compatible with a 2.5 per cent growth in European income
between now and 2050. In this scenario, the carbon content of economic
output must be reduced to just 2 per cent of the best currently
achieved anywhere in the European Union.
In short, if we insist on growing the economy endlessly, then we will
have to reduce the carbon intensity of our spending to a tiny fraction
of what it is now. If growth is to continue beyond 2050, so must
improvements in efficiency. Growth at 2.5 per cent per year from 2050
to the end of the century would more than triple the global economy
beyond the 2050 level, requiring almost complete decarbonisation of
every last dollar.
The potential for technological improvements, renewable energy, carbon
sequestration and, ultimately perhaps, a hydrogen-based economy has
not been exhausted. But what politicians will not admit is that we
have no idea if such a radical transformation is even possible, or if
so what it would look like. Where will the investment and resources
come from? Where will the wastes and the emissions go? What might it
feel like to live in a world with 10 times as much economic activity
as we have today?
Instead, they bombard us with adverts cajoling us to insulate our
homes, turn down our thermostats, drive a little less, walk a little
more. The one piece of advice you will not see on a government list is
"buy less stuff". Buying an energy-efficient TV is to be applauded;
not buying one at all is a crime against society. Agreeing reluctantly
to advertising standards is the sign of a mature society; banning
advertising altogether (even to children) is condemned as "culture
jamming". Consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to
save carbon emissions, and yet no one dares to mention it. Because if
we did, it would threaten economic growth, the very thing that is
causing the problem in the first place.
Visceral fear is not without foundation. If we do not go out shopping,
then factories stop producing, and if factories stop producing then
people get laid off. If people get laid off, then they do not have any
money. And if they don't have any money they cannot go shopping. A
falling economy has no money in the public purse and no way to service
public debt. It struggles to maintain competitiveness and it puts
people's jobs at risk. A government that fails to respond
appropriately will soon find itself out of office.
This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow
continuously or face an unpalatable collapse. With the environmental
situation reaching crisis point, however, it is time to stop
pretending that mindlessly chasing economic growth is compatible with
sustainability. We need something more robust than a comfort blanket
to protect us from the damage we are wreaking on the planet. Figuring
out an alternative to this doomed model is now a priority before a
global recession, an unstable climate, or a combination of the two
forces itself upon us.
==============
Tim Jackson is professor of sustainable development at the University
of Surrey, UK. His research focuses on understanding the social,
psychological and structural dimensions of sustainable living. He is
also a member of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises
the UK government.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:53:05 -0500
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Center_for_Population_Biology?=
<smaceygallow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Job Posting: CPB Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
EFFECTIVE: December 5, 2008
DEADLINE: January 20, 2009
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW IN POPULATION BIOLOGY--The Center for Population Biology
at UC Davis invites applications for a Postdoctoral Fellowship in Population
Biology, broadly defined to include ecology, phylogenetics, comparative
biology, population genetics, and evolution. We particularly encourage
applications from candidates that have recently completed, or will soon
complete, their PhD. The position is for TWO YEARS, subject to review after
one year, and can begin as early as 1 July 2009. It has an annual salary of
$38,000 plus benefits, and $6,000 per annum in research support. The Fellow
will be a fully participating member in the Center for Population Biology
and will be expected to have an independent research program that bridges
the interests of two or more CPB research groups. We strongly encourage
candidates to contact appropriate faculty sponsors before applying. We also
ask that each Fellow teach a multi-day workshop, discussion or lecture
series that is of broad interest to the community of population biologists
at UC Davis; faculty sponsors or the Director of CPB (Brad Shaffer) can
provide additional input on this aspect of the fellowship. For samples of
past workshop abstracts and more information about UC Davis programs in
population biology, see http://www.cpb.ucdavis.edu.
ONLINE APPLICATION: Interested candidates should submit a cover letter, CV,
a short (1-2 page) description of research accomplishments, a short (1-2
page) description of proposed research including potential faculty mentors,
a brief description of their proposed workshop/minicourse, and copies of two
publications at http://www2.eve.ucdavis.edu/jobs/ all as PDFs. We require 3
letters of recommendation. The referees you list in the online application
will receive an automatic notification from our system instructing them how
to directly upload letters to our website. Refer to the on-line
instructions for further information. For full consideration, applications
should be received by January 20. 2009. The University of California is an
affirmative action/equal opportunity employer with a strong institutional
commitment to the development of a climate that supports equality of
opportunity and respect for differences. E-mail questions to
gradcoordinator@xxxxxxxxxxxx
DEADLINE: January 20, 2009
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:43:48 -0500
From: "Swihart, Robert K" <rswihart@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Postdoctoral position in community ecology
Applications are invited for a postdoctoral research associate in
community ecology at Purdue University. Support exists for a 2-year
appointment to begin in 2009 in the Department of Forestry and Natural
Resources (http://www.fnr.purdue.edu/), with the possibility of
extensions. The successful candidate will work in collaboration with
the Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center under the
direction of Rob Swihart, whose focus is on fragmentation ecology, seed
dispersal, oak ecology, and plant-herbivore interactions. Involvement
in planned or ongoing projects is expected, including one or more of the
following: 1) identifying environmental determinants of seed dispersal
and predation by rodents and birds in hardwood ecosystems; 2) evaluating
effects of herbivores and competitors on early life stage demography of
oaks; 3) assessing the importance of density-dependence and diet
selection in determining the impact of mammalian herbivores on efforts
to restore or regenerate woody plants; 4) modeling occupancy patterns,
metapopulation dynamics, and landscape genetics in species as varied as
rodents and beetles; and 5) modeling the role of plant toxins in
mediating functional responses of herbivores in complex communities.
=20
The successful applicant will conduct original research, write
manuscripts for publication, and develop competitive grant proposals. A
Ph.D. in ecology, wildlife, or related discipline is required, along
with strong quantitative skills. Publication and grant-writing
experience is expected. Field research and experience with analysis and
programming in R is desirable. =20
=20
Please email a resume and a short (1-page) letter of interest, including
cumulative GPA, GRE scores, and contact telephone numbers and email
addresses for three references to rswihart@xxxxxxxxxxx Salary is
competitive and commensurate with experience. Purdue University is an
equal access/equal opportunity/affirmative action employer fully
committed to achieving a diverse workforce.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:10:10 -0500
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sharon_Billings?= <sharonb@xxxxxx>
Subject: post-doctoral position available
A post-doctoral research position in boreal soil biogeochemistry is
available at the University of Kansas, as part of a multi-investigator
project with partners at Memorial University, the Canadian Forest Service,
and Newfoundland and Labrador Forestry. The project explores how microbial
processing of soil carbon (C) changes with increasing temperature along a
climate transect in the forests of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The
successful candidate will work in Dr. Sharon Billings' laboratory
(http://www.kbs.ku.edu/people/staff_www/billings/index.html) and be
responsible for conducting field assays of soil respiration and soil
collections, and field and laboratory experiments including (but not limited
to) extracellular enzyme assays, phospholipid fatty acid analyses, stable
isotope probing, and assessments of nitrogen (N) and C pool sizes and
chemical composition. The project employs stable isotopes of C and N as
tools for defining how soil conditions influence C release and N
availability. We seek an individual able to work for extended periods in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and who is driven to understand factors
regulating C cycling in forest soils and specifically how multiple pools of
soil C will respond to rising temperatures. Required qualifications include
a Ph.D. at the time of appointment in ecosystem ecology, Earth system
science, biogeochemistry or a related field, and experience in soil
microbial ecology and stable isotope ecology. Preferred qualifications
include experience using stable isotope probing or molecular tools to
address questions of global change. Position is available for one year,
with the possibility of renewal for an additional 1-2 years. To apply, see
https://jobs.ku.edu/, position #00207225. Application review will start
1/15/09. EO/AA
___________________________________________________________
Sharon Billings
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Kansas Biological Survey
University of Kansas
2101 Constant Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66047
785-864-1560
http://www.kbs.ku.edu/people/staff_www/billings
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:49:17 -0500
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ellen_Damschen?= <damschen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Jobs: Three Postdoctoral Positions in Ecology
Three Postdoctoral Positions in Ecology
Three postdoctoral positions are available to work to understand longleaf
pine understory plant community assembly and restoration, in collaboration
with John Orrock (Washington University), Ellen Damschen (Washington
University), Lars Brudvig (Washington University), and Joan Walker (Forest
Service Southern Research Station and Clemson University), and with funding
from the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP).
The successful candidates will conduct experimental research to determine
how local ecological processes (dispersal limitation, competition,
consumers) interact with landscape context to influence plant community
diversity, composition, and restoration at three sites located in the
Carolinas (including Fort Bragg, NC and Savannah River Site, SC). The
successful candidates will be responsible for implementing a large-scale
experimental study (manipulating seed additions, consumer exclosures, and
competitor removals) and must be adept at working with local managers and
managing field assistants to assure the execution of the project. In
addition to facilitating the goals of the larger project, each postdoc will
also be encouraged to develop their own independent research within the
context of the larger project.
Funding for salary, benefits, and research expenses is available for three
years for each of the postdoc positions. The preferred start date is spring
2009. The primary location for each of the postdocs will be determined
together with the research group, but substantial time will need to be spent
at the field sites in the Carolinas to conduct the experimental portions of
the work (each postdoc will likely be responsible for one of the field
sites). Applicants must have relevant Ph.D. experience in ecology,
conservation biology, or restoration ecology and be eager to work as a
collaborative team with the other postdocs and scientists on the project.
Application review will begin January 1, 2009, and continue until the
positions are filled. Women and Minorities are strongly encouraged to
apply. Washington University is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer.
Applications should consist of a 1-2 page statement of research interests
focusing on projects that could be conducted related to the themes of this
research project, a curriculum vitae, relevant publications, and names of
three references. The application should also contain a cover page that
highlights the applicant�s skills and abilities in areas relevant to this
project, including experience with community ecology, experimental ecology
(e.g., consumer exclosure construction, seed additions, etc.), ecological
restoration, landscape ecology (e.g., landscape analyses, GIS skills, etc.),
managing volunteers and field crews, and collaborating with management
agencies. Applications should be sent (e-mail preferred) to:
Ellen Damschen
E-mail: damschen@xxxxxxxxx
Department of Biology
Washington University
1 Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1137
St. Louis, MO 63130
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:23:55 -0500
From: "Czech, Brian" <czech@xxxxxx>
Subject: Big lesson on growth politics at NCSE conference
Colleagues,
I'd like to share some valuable lessons about the politics of economic growth that I learned at the National Council for Science and the Environment conference this week in Washington, DC. First, the relationship between economic growth and biodiversity conservation (and environmental protection in general) is looking like the "next big issue," as some folks called it. There is a good chance it will be a featured topic at the next NCSE conference, and certainly many sub-events within the conference will be conducive to addressing the topic.
A few years ago, you couldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole in such a venue, not without getting beat up, but at the NCSE conference it seemed to be everywhere this year. That includes the major political panel discussion, where each of the three congressmen (Moran, Holt, Inslee) and to a lesser extent the one senator (Whitehouse) either explicitly or clearly implicitly discussed the topic. All except one seemed to recognize the trade-off between economic growth and biodiversity conservation.
The one exception called the relationship a "symbiotic" one. I spoke with him afterward and it was clear he had conflated economic growth with economic continuance (such as a steady state economy). That was one problem with his analysis, plus he was thinking of a microeconomic sector, namely the auto industry (an odd choice, come to think of it), rather than the macro-economy. So I gave him a paper on the topic and he insisted he would read it because he wants to understand the topic more thoroughly. We'll see if that makes a difference.
I also learned a tougher lesson. I consciously attempted to optimize my own input to the conference on the subject, neither inputting too much nor too little. I chose two primary venues: a plenary panel on the first day and Tom Friedman's keynote lecture on the second.
After the plenary panel, I took a calculated risk by asking one of the panelists a brief question. The panelist was a social entrepreneur, in the stated business of helping clients bring about "positive social and environmental change." I've learned you can get yourself into the conference doghouse by providing too much context in a Q/A session; i.e., you have to get straight to the question. So I eschewed the context in this case and simply asked, "Given the fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, what advice can you give environmental scientists for educating the public and policy makers on this conflict and for moving the polity away from the unsustainable goal of growth and toward the goal of a steady state economy?"
I lost the gamble, and I won't be eschewing the context any time soon! Her response was (and all these "quotes" are by memory), "I disagree with the assumption that there is such a conflict... etc. etc. etc." Part of her response was that we could reinvent the phrase "economic growth" to mean something different than it does. That shows us how some folks can keep a straight face while propagating the old fallacy that "there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection." They just reinvent the terms in their own minds - not much science there! Meanwhile, the public and policy makers go on recognizing economic growth for what it is: increasing production and consumption of goods and services (in the aggregate), as indicated by increasing GDP.
So after Friedman's keynote, which he concluded by quoting a eulogy to Dana Meadows, I used some context: "Dana Meadows recognized limits to economic growth and the trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection. So I have a question about the 'flow of electrons' you mentioned as related to biodiversity conservation. [The "flow of electrons" was Friedman's phrase for describing the cheap, clean energy he advises we seek). When we look at the causes of species endangerment in the United States, they read like a Who's Who of the American economy, so all that additional energy in the service of economic growth would tend to eliminate more biodiversity. Yet corporations and Wall Street have been claiming for decades that 'there is no conflict between growing the economy and conserving biodiversity.' Now a number of professional natural resources societies have studied this issue intensively, including the ecological and economic theory, evidence, and models!
, and have concluded, not assumed, that there is conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation, and that this conflict is fundamental because it is based on laws of thermodynamics and principles of ecology, especially the principle of competitive exclusion. So, in addition to the market reforms you have recommended for 'getting the prices right,' don't we also need to be thinking about macroeconomic policy reform, moving with fiscal, monetary, and trade policies away from the goal of growth and toward the goal of a steady state economy?"
Friedman's answer was just what the doctor ordered. First, it was a long and thoughtful answer. He said at least three times (maybe 4-5) that this is a "very important issue" to think about and deal with, consistent with the "next big thing" theme. He noted that, when he thinks about the steady state economy, he thinks about the impoverished countries he has visited and recognizes - as do we all - that we can't expect them to move toward a steady state any time soon. In fact, this is an underlying message of his book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. And he does hold out some hope for increasing efficiencies, accompanied with new energy sources, to play out for some time. Yet, and this is the big one, he acknowledged that, ultimately, and perhaps very soon, we will have reached the end of that efficiency pathway (the macroeconomic manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics, as I described it in my paper on technological progress), and that we will have to think seriously!
about how to accomplish a steady state.
In my estimation, a few things can be learned from these exchanges. The "win-win" entrepreneurial panelist shot me right out of the political saddle. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but thinking that many in the audience must have been wondering, "What's she talking about?" After all, already by that point in the conference, several speakers had spoken about how increasing populations and "economic activity" (a much more policy-relevant phrase than the old "human activity," thankfully) were dooming species into the Sixth Great Extinction. So even that exchange wasn't a total loss. But the exchange with Friedman eclipsed by an order of magnitude any political loss from the first day.
So I think the lesson is that, when we broach this topic in public forums, we have to provide just enough context to ask the question in a way that it cannot be mis-portrayed as "assuming" that there is a conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation.
Finally, Friedman's answer was a nice validation of ecological economics, because it blended the three themes of ecological economics: scale, distribution of wealth, and allocation of resources. Friedman acknowledged that each of these are significant issues that must be handled with public policies to halt the erosion of biodiversity.
Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 9 Dec 2008 to 10 Dec 2008 (#2008-338)
**************************************************************