Posts
The time has come around once again to cast your ballot. You are either a die-hard democrat or a die-hard republican and you think what you are doing is changing the way that the country is going to ran. Then thoughts of one of my favorite worker right activist, Emma Goldman, comes to mind. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Nothing is truer of American. Democrats will always fight Republicans and the Republicans will always fight Democrats. It does not matter how each bill are similar in some ways, if it is Republican supported and Democrats will fight it, or vise-versa.
What do we do about it? Currently, we vote. What does this gets us? Elected life-long politicians that care nothing of their constituents but only care of what is going to get them elected the next term. That is all that they care for. What brings them the most money and what will get them elected the next term.
The majority of Americans are apathetic to this situation. We support, the lesser of the two evils. We should stop! If we are sick of it, then we need to do something, because voting does us nothing. The Europeans know how to do it. They don't like something, they strike! We don't like something, we say "there is nothing we can do about it."
So, this year, I choose not to vote. The idea is not to throw my support to the other side, the tea-partiers, because it takes my vote out, but to not give support to a system that is broken and say it is okay to be governed. Henry David Thoreau said it best "Participation [voting] is an instrument of [government] conquest...encourages people to give their consent to being governed."
It is okay to not vote! Strike the Root is a great web-site and I support his ideas. What we really need to do is to get educated (something that the government is totally against) and rise up and take power!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Communication...or the there of.
With technology today, communication is easy. The the invention of cellular or mobile phones, a person can be reach practically ever where (within reach of a tower). When the internet was formed and e-mail soon there after, people can be reached immediately when they are at a computer. This has been a great advancement over sending mail out through the postal service, but has almost bankrupted the postal service itself. Now with the innovation of the smart phone, and the combination of e-mail, internet, and phone service, it is very easy.
So why has people became so reluctant to communicating with each other, now more than ever? Even in public, people have became cold. Passing by others on the street, people look down at there feet, don't look at each other, have ear buds in, and keep to themselves. I like the general nod or the smile from a passerby. But this is not what I want to write about...
What I want to know is why people, even friends, do not return phone calls and/or e-mails. It is common courtesy to reply. With e-mail, a general, "Hey, I'm have a lot to do right now, I'll get back to you soon" would be great, but I get nothing. On the phone, people would generally let their voicemail pick up. I, when people call, if I am with someone, will generally excuse myself, walk away and pick-up. If I am really busy, or if it is interupting something important, I'll send the caller to voicemail, but I'll call back as soon as I can possible do it. If I am really too busy, then I make time to reply and I make sure of it.
It is very cold and disrespectful of people, especially ones that people that you consider friends, to not return communication. Should you keep them as friends and contacts? I say "NO!" Even with facebook, why have 500 friends, when there is no communication. People just post something for other people to see, and that is good enough for them. I can be found guilty of not communicating with people sometimes, but in general, I go through my list and send a message ever now and again. Most times with no reply. Then there are those people that send out friend request, without even sending out communications. For those people, I wait a month and let them sit there, and if they don't have the common courtesy to send a message to try to set up a line of communication, I press ignore. Then after three or four times of a person doing that, I send a message to them explaining my reasonings.
Communication is what is lacking in our society today. On so many level. Communication with our government, colleagues, friends, academics, etc. Maybe something will get accomplished, especially with our government, but that is another story.
So, I say take the time in your day, to say hello to a friend, or a passerby. Maybe it will make a difference.
So why has people became so reluctant to communicating with each other, now more than ever? Even in public, people have became cold. Passing by others on the street, people look down at there feet, don't look at each other, have ear buds in, and keep to themselves. I like the general nod or the smile from a passerby. But this is not what I want to write about...
What I want to know is why people, even friends, do not return phone calls and/or e-mails. It is common courtesy to reply. With e-mail, a general, "Hey, I'm have a lot to do right now, I'll get back to you soon" would be great, but I get nothing. On the phone, people would generally let their voicemail pick up. I, when people call, if I am with someone, will generally excuse myself, walk away and pick-up. If I am really busy, or if it is interupting something important, I'll send the caller to voicemail, but I'll call back as soon as I can possible do it. If I am really too busy, then I make time to reply and I make sure of it.
It is very cold and disrespectful of people, especially ones that people that you consider friends, to not return communication. Should you keep them as friends and contacts? I say "NO!" Even with facebook, why have 500 friends, when there is no communication. People just post something for other people to see, and that is good enough for them. I can be found guilty of not communicating with people sometimes, but in general, I go through my list and send a message ever now and again. Most times with no reply. Then there are those people that send out friend request, without even sending out communications. For those people, I wait a month and let them sit there, and if they don't have the common courtesy to send a message to try to set up a line of communication, I press ignore. Then after three or four times of a person doing that, I send a message to them explaining my reasonings.
Communication is what is lacking in our society today. On so many level. Communication with our government, colleagues, friends, academics, etc. Maybe something will get accomplished, especially with our government, but that is another story.
So, I say take the time in your day, to say hello to a friend, or a passerby. Maybe it will make a difference.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
As we approach the tripping point...or has it already been past?
With the oil spill in the gulf from the Deep Horizon oil platform 52 days ago, and not being able to stop it from gushing out of the well, we need to rethink what we have and are continually doing to the earth. On reading last months issue of adbusters, "The Ecopsychology Issue" (#89), recent review of Mary-Jane Rust's books entitles "Ecotherepy: Healing with Nature in Mind" and "Climate on the Couch," brought on frightening realizations on where we are heading and how people cope with it. In "Ecotherepy: Healing with Nature in Mind," they explored people behavior and coping methods. In it, it is described, while having in a therapy session that her client admits to:
"spending there entire leisure time drinking heavily and taking drugs. She [the client] denies that this is a problem and tells me [the psychiatrist] that is the norm among her peer group of thirtysomethings...We explore the issue up and down, round and round, for some weeks. In a moment of wild thinking I ask 'What do you feel about the future?' 'We're completely fucked' the client admits...The clients esplains that we humans do not stand a chance. We consume and pollute the earth, causing climate change and widespread distruction, out future looks bleak. After we explore this further, I tentatively ask if she thinks there is a connection between this and her drinking. 'Oh definitely,' she [the client] replies. 'Why not drink and do drugs? There's no future. We might as well go out partying'"
This is curious and I will be looking for this book in the future. It is also scary, in that, I can see this happening. I see in happening in my own life and in the eyes of my colleagues. I learned in a population and community ecology class about populations being in equilibrium and how they crash when they fall out of equilibrium. In fact, as we become smarter, we can see that we are causing our own extinct, but not until we kill off every other living thing in the world first.
It is time to stop passing blame off into other people (both democrats and republicans parties) and start making a ecosystem revolution. Small things that each individual can do, does not and has not worked. But we still do them. Our landfill keep getting larger and larger, we destroy hundreds of thousands acres of natural habitat yearly, and we just see it as something that we must do to survive. Things need to change. Things need to stop. Ways to do it is changing our government and removing special interest. We constantly look for a change, but it has not happened. We elect new people, but still there is no change.
We need to stop being so selfish and realize that there is not much left of this finite earth. I think that you need to ask yourself, "What am I going to do?" Are you going to be apathetic and say that nothing can be done, or will you organize a movement? Will you wait for technology to save us, because most likely it will not? It hasn't so far.
"spending there entire leisure time drinking heavily and taking drugs. She [the client] denies that this is a problem and tells me [the psychiatrist] that is the norm among her peer group of thirtysomethings...We explore the issue up and down, round and round, for some weeks. In a moment of wild thinking I ask 'What do you feel about the future?' 'We're completely fucked' the client admits...The clients esplains that we humans do not stand a chance. We consume and pollute the earth, causing climate change and widespread distruction, out future looks bleak. After we explore this further, I tentatively ask if she thinks there is a connection between this and her drinking. 'Oh definitely,' she [the client] replies. 'Why not drink and do drugs? There's no future. We might as well go out partying'"
This is curious and I will be looking for this book in the future. It is also scary, in that, I can see this happening. I see in happening in my own life and in the eyes of my colleagues. I learned in a population and community ecology class about populations being in equilibrium and how they crash when they fall out of equilibrium. In fact, as we become smarter, we can see that we are causing our own extinct, but not until we kill off every other living thing in the world first.
It is time to stop passing blame off into other people (both democrats and republicans parties) and start making a ecosystem revolution. Small things that each individual can do, does not and has not worked. But we still do them. Our landfill keep getting larger and larger, we destroy hundreds of thousands acres of natural habitat yearly, and we just see it as something that we must do to survive. Things need to change. Things need to stop. Ways to do it is changing our government and removing special interest. We constantly look for a change, but it has not happened. We elect new people, but still there is no change.
We need to stop being so selfish and realize that there is not much left of this finite earth. I think that you need to ask yourself, "What am I going to do?" Are you going to be apathetic and say that nothing can be done, or will you organize a movement? Will you wait for technology to save us, because most likely it will not? It hasn't so far.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Cap and Trade....come on?
Cap and trade is not a climate solution. It is a way for mega-corporations and the government to pollute legally. It is a scam and will create our next market bubble. T. Boone Picking is supporting this, but he is also supporting making money by extracting natural gas and using it for transportation (another greenhouse gas emitter) instead of importing oil.
Cap and trade will only create our next bubble and keep us on tract to destroy this earth that we inhabit. This is just disaster for the U.S. and the rest of the world will hurt because of our doing.
Cap and trade will only create our next bubble and keep us on tract to destroy this earth that we inhabit. This is just disaster for the U.S. and the rest of the world will hurt because of our doing.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The end as we know it.
I happened across this interview through facebook on how we have harmed the earth and have passed the tipping point of survivals of our species. "Eaarth": Earth is over is a powerful interview of Bill McKibben, the author of "The End of Nature," on how we have far surpassed what is sustainable. What I cannot believe is that, "Forty-four percent of Americans still don’t believe global warming is man-made." This is very scary. We have hard evidence, but American are ignorant. Little changes by individuals, might make you feel good, but WILL NOT make a difference. We need governments and major corporation make changes on what they do.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
It was not an attack on a person, but rather an attach on an idea!
On March 17, 2010, Christopher Hitchens gave a honorarium at Miami University to a crowd that filled the Farmer Business School's Auditorium (both the main floor and balcony). Practically I was amazed by his eloquent speech on the No.1 New York Times Bestseller "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." There was a question and answer period and it allowed Hitchens to discuss further why religion poisons everything, and people actually thought that it was an personal attach. He was attacking the idea that there is a God. People are so attached to there idea of a God, that they see it as an attack against people.
Afterward, he gave a book signing, where he sat a table and greeted people and let them speak there mind. You even had a chance to have a photo taken with him. He went out to have a smoke and a crowd followed. He talked with people throughout this time and people brought up there views. It was quite astounding. I felt that he smoked them along with his cigarette.
Later, there were many views in The Student, Miami University news paper. The Secular Student's of Miami had a response (bottom starting with "We, the Secular...") to the misguided person.
Later, a graduate student in the French Department wrote the Department Chairs telling them to stop funding hate (attached the letter here):
To the departments and programs that sponsored Christopher Hitchens' speech of 17 March:
I write to express my deep and sincere disappointment in your decision to sponsor Mr. Hitchens to speak on campus. I wish to make it perfectly clear I have no problem with Mr. Hitchens expressing his views. Freedom of speech is what makes this country great. My problem rests with the fact that your departments sponsored Mr. Hitchens, thereby sponsoring his hate speech.
Billed as an event to promote understanding, Mr. Hitchens' speech was nothing more than a tirade against all religion and its followers. Rather than embracing diversity, Mr. Hitchens preaches and practices intolerance of all faith. He elaborates on this point in his book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Keeping with this track record, Mr. Hitchens came to Miami under your sponsorship and spread his message of hate and intolerance on our campus. I am profoundly shocked your departments provided funding for this. Perhaps what is most troubling is the apparent double standard your departments have established in regards to religion.
Had Mr Hitchens written a book about homosexuality, African-Americans or any other minority in the same manner as he wrote How God is Not Great, he never would have been invited to campus and your departments certainly never would have sponsored him. Furthermore, if we replace the word "religion" with "homosexuality" in any of his attacks from his speech, I sincerely doubt any of your departments would have a problem classifying them as hate speech.
According to Miami's No Hate Initiative http://www.miami.muohio.edu/documents_and_policies/nohate/#hc4
"Many individuals become targets of hateful acts because others are unable to accept differences based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, ethnicity or disability. Miami University condemns such acts. At Miami, a hateful incident directed at an individual or group, owing to their difference, is viewed as an attack on the entire community."
A entire speech dedicated to explaining how religion "robs us of autonomy, independence and responsibility" and how it is "taught to kids who can't defend themselves" would seem to me a clear cut case of "a hateful incident directed at an individual or group owing to their difference." What I cannot understand is your department's failure to abide by the university's own No Hate Initiative.
According to Miami's mission statement http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/mission/
"As an inclusive community, Miami strives to cultivate an environment where diversity and difference are appreciated and respected."
How can the university make such a claim while sponsoring those who wish to destroy diversity? I fully realize that atheists and secularists are part of our community here at Miami. I think that's wonderful that they contribute to our diversity. I in no way wish to deny them a voice on campus; however, there are plenty of atheist or secularist authors who are not bigots and whose views still allow them to appreciate and respect others.
This entire incident has seriously shaken my confidence and my pride in my university. I believe nothing less than an official apology is due on the part of the university for sponsoring hate. If the university refuses to take this step it thereby affirms a double standard in regards to faith and suggests that bigotry - as long as it is directed towards the spiritual or religious - is acceptable at Miami University
Please feel free to contact me at any time by email or phone.
Sincerely,
Alan Burke
_____________________
Alan J. Burke '09 MA '11
French Graduate Assistant
burkeaj@muohio.edu
Miami University
(216) 409-3022
First off, and I state this again - it was an attach on an idea, it was not a personal attack! If he were to say that all Christians need to be punished, then it would be hate a speech. Homosexuality and being an African-American is something a person is, religion is not something that you are born with. So I am posting this, just in case you want to write or call Alan Burke to express your views to him.
Afterward, he gave a book signing, where he sat a table and greeted people and let them speak there mind. You even had a chance to have a photo taken with him. He went out to have a smoke and a crowd followed. He talked with people throughout this time and people brought up there views. It was quite astounding. I felt that he smoked them along with his cigarette.
Later, there were many views in The Student, Miami University news paper. The Secular Student's of Miami had a response (bottom starting with "We, the Secular...") to the misguided person.
Later, a graduate student in the French Department wrote the Department Chairs telling them to stop funding hate (attached the letter here):
To the departments and programs that sponsored Christopher Hitchens' speech of 17 March:
I write to express my deep and sincere disappointment in your decision to sponsor Mr. Hitchens to speak on campus. I wish to make it perfectly clear I have no problem with Mr. Hitchens expressing his views. Freedom of speech is what makes this country great. My problem rests with the fact that your departments sponsored Mr. Hitchens, thereby sponsoring his hate speech.
Billed as an event to promote understanding, Mr. Hitchens' speech was nothing more than a tirade against all religion and its followers. Rather than embracing diversity, Mr. Hitchens preaches and practices intolerance of all faith. He elaborates on this point in his book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Keeping with this track record, Mr. Hitchens came to Miami under your sponsorship and spread his message of hate and intolerance on our campus. I am profoundly shocked your departments provided funding for this. Perhaps what is most troubling is the apparent double standard your departments have established in regards to religion.
Had Mr Hitchens written a book about homosexuality, African-Americans or any other minority in the same manner as he wrote How God is Not Great, he never would have been invited to campus and your departments certainly never would have sponsored him. Furthermore, if we replace the word "religion" with "homosexuality" in any of his attacks from his speech, I sincerely doubt any of your departments would have a problem classifying them as hate speech.
According to Miami's No Hate Initiative http://www.miami.muohio.edu/documents_and_policies/nohate/#hc4
"Many individuals become targets of hateful acts because others are unable to accept differences based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, ethnicity or disability. Miami University condemns such acts. At Miami, a hateful incident directed at an individual or group, owing to their difference, is viewed as an attack on the entire community."
A entire speech dedicated to explaining how religion "robs us of autonomy, independence and responsibility" and how it is "taught to kids who can't defend themselves" would seem to me a clear cut case of "a hateful incident directed at an individual or group owing to their difference." What I cannot understand is your department's failure to abide by the university's own No Hate Initiative.
According to Miami's mission statement http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/mission/
"As an inclusive community, Miami strives to cultivate an environment where diversity and difference are appreciated and respected."
How can the university make such a claim while sponsoring those who wish to destroy diversity? I fully realize that atheists and secularists are part of our community here at Miami. I think that's wonderful that they contribute to our diversity. I in no way wish to deny them a voice on campus; however, there are plenty of atheist or secularist authors who are not bigots and whose views still allow them to appreciate and respect others.
This entire incident has seriously shaken my confidence and my pride in my university. I believe nothing less than an official apology is due on the part of the university for sponsoring hate. If the university refuses to take this step it thereby affirms a double standard in regards to faith and suggests that bigotry - as long as it is directed towards the spiritual or religious - is acceptable at Miami University
Please feel free to contact me at any time by email or phone.
Sincerely,
Alan Burke
_____________________
Alan J. Burke '09 MA '11
French Graduate Assistant
burkeaj@muohio.edu
Miami University
(216) 409-3022
First off, and I state this again - it was an attach on an idea, it was not a personal attack! If he were to say that all Christians need to be punished, then it would be hate a speech. Homosexuality and being an African-American is something a person is, religion is not something that you are born with. So I am posting this, just in case you want to write or call Alan Burke to express your views to him.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Random Thoughts (part 1)
These are things that are on my mind, that I just want to get out, not to anyone in particular, but just need to put in writing. This is a divergence from what I would normally blog on. This is part one, and there may or may not be a part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...
I have been pondering this for quite some time now. I have, in the past 6 months, or so, seen this movie, that kind of hinted at the same idea that has been in my mind. This idea first came to mind around the turn of the millennium (ca. 2000), way before the movie was produced. If anyone has seen Idiocracy kind of knows where I am going with this. The evolution of humans becoming more stupid...or the de-evolution of man. But this goes deeper than that.
Evolutionarily speaking, humans, and other organisms, has the natural tendency to pro-create. Looking at my colleagues, and other people that surrounds me, this tendency has been put on the back burner. They have things that are, in there mind, "more important" to accomplish. They have there career and other points of accomplishments top obtain. On top of that, there are others colleagues of mine that do not want to pro-create.
I am not rejecting this idea, to each there own. The only thing is that I don't know of what to take of this. I, personally, want to have a child...and I have been thinking of this more often lately. What, I'm 32 now. So, I'll be 50 or older than that by the time my offspring will get out the house. I don't want to be retirement age when they leave. I not saying that choosing a career first is selfish, but I not sating wanting say having kids is selfish either.
Once people already have there career established, they are closer to my age. There are many things that comes with older age (infertility, genetic problems of the child, etc.), but I am not saying that I want to have a child with any random femail. The time has to be right for me and my significant other to have a child. Looking at the population that are having offspring, for the most part, they are poorer an uneducated. This is where I see a parallel with Idiocracy. "The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."
Right now, I am currently working on my Masters degree and will start my PhD in the fall. I can see myself being a stay at home dad...I can see that easily happening. It is a natural tendency of ALL organism to pro-create, and I get jealous when I hear of my friends and about that they have a family, that is all that I am saying....
I have been pondering this for quite some time now. I have, in the past 6 months, or so, seen this movie, that kind of hinted at the same idea that has been in my mind. This idea first came to mind around the turn of the millennium (ca. 2000), way before the movie was produced. If anyone has seen Idiocracy kind of knows where I am going with this. The evolution of humans becoming more stupid...or the de-evolution of man. But this goes deeper than that.
Evolutionarily speaking, humans, and other organisms, has the natural tendency to pro-create. Looking at my colleagues, and other people that surrounds me, this tendency has been put on the back burner. They have things that are, in there mind, "more important" to accomplish. They have there career and other points of accomplishments top obtain. On top of that, there are others colleagues of mine that do not want to pro-create.
I am not rejecting this idea, to each there own. The only thing is that I don't know of what to take of this. I, personally, want to have a child...and I have been thinking of this more often lately. What, I'm 32 now. So, I'll be 50 or older than that by the time my offspring will get out the house. I don't want to be retirement age when they leave. I not saying that choosing a career first is selfish, but I not sating wanting say having kids is selfish either.
Once people already have there career established, they are closer to my age. There are many things that comes with older age (infertility, genetic problems of the child, etc.), but I am not saying that I want to have a child with any random femail. The time has to be right for me and my significant other to have a child. Looking at the population that are having offspring, for the most part, they are poorer an uneducated. This is where I see a parallel with Idiocracy. "The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."
Right now, I am currently working on my Masters degree and will start my PhD in the fall. I can see myself being a stay at home dad...I can see that easily happening. It is a natural tendency of ALL organism to pro-create, and I get jealous when I hear of my friends and about that they have a family, that is all that I am saying....
Sunday, March 7, 2010
America in Default
Why is it that when the government want to help out it's citizen, all of the sudden it is seen as a bad idea? The citizen of the U.S.A. should be able to have affordable health care, and not have to go in dept. All the government is looking at the the cost of reforming health care, they are not looking at the benefits to the population. Who lobbies to try to stop health care reform? The insurance companies. How is health a profit making institution!!!!!!!! We worry about what it would cost us if we actually pass this bill. I hear everyday, that more dept would be cause and send us further down the spiral. What is the major cost to America today? Both of our wars! Afghanistan and Iraq and I do not see us leaving there anytime soon.
What I am really, really sick of...is our government...that does NOTHING but bicker with each other. Choose a side, go ahead, I don't care. All you have is two choices. Republican or democrat (I refuse to choose a side now, I am, in fact, ashamed to even consider myself an American now)...and when you choose a side, you'll hate the other. It always happens. All they care about is getting re-elected and making money. They don't give a shit about there citizens. They just want the power...the power to get NOTHING done.
What I am really, really sick of...is our government...that does NOTHING but bicker with each other. Choose a side, go ahead, I don't care. All you have is two choices. Republican or democrat (I refuse to choose a side now, I am, in fact, ashamed to even consider myself an American now)...and when you choose a side, you'll hate the other. It always happens. All they care about is getting re-elected and making money. They don't give a shit about there citizens. They just want the power...the power to get NOTHING done.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Come to Realization!
INDIVIDUAL CHANGES ALONE WILL NOT STOP THIS PERPETUAL CHANGE IN OUR CLIMATE
We must come to realization that changes in all governments and corporations must be made to stop the increasing destruction of the environment and global climate change. Yes, individual changes can be made, and should be made. But, one or two changes in your lifestyle does not do much (i.e., lowering the heat or biking to work). These individual effort do very little to prevent global climate change, except mostly making you feel a little bit better about yourself. What is really happening is the prevention that you are doing is made up by others. Our main culprit is big industry fulfilling the need of the masses, the masses are over-populating the world and the over-population is provided by big industry. It is a vicious positive feedback!
One of the big problems is the government is allowing this to happen. They are only allowing this to happen because of big industry is paying the government to allow this to happen. The government is not ran by the people, it is ran by big business. There is no change! There will never be change!
We must come to realization that changes in all governments and corporations must be made to stop the increasing destruction of the environment and global climate change. Yes, individual changes can be made, and should be made. But, one or two changes in your lifestyle does not do much (i.e., lowering the heat or biking to work). These individual effort do very little to prevent global climate change, except mostly making you feel a little bit better about yourself. What is really happening is the prevention that you are doing is made up by others. Our main culprit is big industry fulfilling the need of the masses, the masses are over-populating the world and the over-population is provided by big industry. It is a vicious positive feedback!
One of the big problems is the government is allowing this to happen. They are only allowing this to happen because of big industry is paying the government to allow this to happen. The government is not ran by the people, it is ran by big business. There is no change! There will never be change!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Synthesis of Kremen et al. 2002
Intensified land use in agriculture, for furnishing long-term demands for food, livestock and biofuels, has lead to reduction of natural and semi-natural habitats (Tscharnkte et al 2005, Bianchi et al. 2006, Tschanrtke et al. 2007). The conversion of these habitats severely impacts crops that entirely rely on pollinators (Klein et al. 2007) and natural enemies (Landis et al. 2000) for high yields. Natural habitat is also harmed by having reduced seed sets because these habitats also rely on these beneficial insects (Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharnkte 1999). As this intensification increases, landscapes changes from diverse crops and pastures in small fields, to large fields of one or two crops type with little to no non-crop habitat (e.g., corn and soybeans; Burel and Baudry 2003).
Natural and semi-natural habitats that can be retained in turn may provide for greater number of beneficial insects and the services that they provide (e.g., Holzschuh et al. 2007, Kremen et al. 2007, Winfree et al. 2008). These habitats are stable resources of perennial plants that are necessary for pollinators, predators and parasitoids, by supplying a continuous nectar resources, alternative prey sources and natural nesting habitats (Kremen et al. 2004, Winfree et al. 2008, Tschanrtke et al. 2007). High landscape heterogeneity with more non-crop habitat has a higher diversity of flowering and perennial plants and therefore a higher diversity of beneficial insects (Holzchuh et al. 2007, Klein et al. 2007, Tschanrtke et al. 2007).
Landscapes with high heterogeneity in land use/land cover type, should have higher levels of species diversity (Burel and Baudry 2003, Tscharkte et al. 2007). Billiter et al. (2008) found that there is a positive correlation between species richness of plants and arthropods. Positive influences on beneficial insects have been seen with the spatial arrangement and larger amounts of perennial habitat (Tscharnkte et al. 2007, Marini et al. 2009).
In this synthesis, we will be examining pollination services, the impacts of pest suppression on pollinators, and how natural habitat supplies necessary resources for these beneficial insects, and how the Kremen et al. (2002) paper considers near-by natural habitat essential for pollination of watermelon crops by native bees, which are seen as having the ability to provide equivalent service to that of managed honey bee populations.
Natural Habitat
Agricultural landscapes with diverse land uses may support high levels of biodiversity of insects and provide a range of ecosystem services (Swinton et al. 2007, Zhang et al. 2007). Insects comprise the most diverse and successful group of multicellular organisms on the planet, and they contribute significantly to vital ecological functions such as pollination, pest control, decomposition, and maintenance of wildlife species (Nee, 2004). A study by Losey and Vaughn (2006) shows that the value of insect services is almost $60 billion a year in the United States, which is only a fraction of the value for all the services insects provide. Indeed, these service-providing insects are under ever increasing threat from a combination of forces, including habitat fragmentation, land cover changes, invasion of non-native plants and animals, and overuse of toxic chemicals. The evidence indicates that beneficial insects are under a steady decline, associated with an overall decline in biodiversity (Kremen et al. 2002). New evidence indicates that in some situations, the most important species for providing ecosystem services are lost first. The overall, gradual decline in species, coupled with nonlinear changes in service levels, makes it difficult to pinpoint an optimal level of annual investment to conserve beneficial insects and maintain the services they provide (Bianchi et al. 2006).
Pollination
Animal pollination is essential for the successful reproduction of most flowering plants. Pollination provides for the transportation of pollen grains, eventually fulfilling both the ecosystem service of fruit and seed production (Kremen et al. 2002). Of the estimated 240,000 species of plants, nearly 220,000, including 70% of the crops that feed human begins depend on animals, mainly insects for pollination. Research shows that over 100,000 animal species including bats, bees, beetles, birds, butterflies, and flies are responsible for providing most pollination services that perpetuate our managed ad natural fields (Daily et al. 1997).
Pollination is perhaps the best ecosystem service performed by insects (Losey and Vaughan 2006). Estimates show that about one third of our food crops are pollinated by wild pollinators. Therefore, without wild pollinators farm yield would be adversely affected, and the survival of wild plants would be uncertain. Among insects, bees constitute the most dominant taxa in providing crop pollination (Zhang et al. 2007), pollinating more than two-thirds of the world’s 1,500 crop species (Kremen et al. 2002).
Pollination by bees, whether managed or native plays one of the most important roles in ensuring survival of food and non-food crops. In the US, pollination by native bees is very important. A study conducted by Cornell University in 2000 estimated the value of bee pollination in United States to be $14.6 billion (Morse and Calderone, 2000). In addition, pollination by honey bees which was imported from Europe also plays a great role in crop pollination. However, there have been great concerns about the invasion and success of the more aggressive African honey bee and the decline of native bees. Questions abound as to whether put more conservation efforts in protecting managed honey bees, or divert most of the resources in managing natural ecosystems upon which native bees depend. Another recent study by Kremen and Vaughan (2009) still on watermelon, a crop with high pollination demand, observed that wild bee community can provide sufficient pollination services for watermelon. Thus conserving native habitats can perpetuate the life of native pollinators and meet pollination needs of our crops. However, it is apparent that higher bee diversity, both managed and native correlates with higher diversity of flowering plants (Kremen et al. 2002).
Perhaps the importance of bee pollination in the US can be explained by watermelon production. Between 1997 and 2000, watermelon production in the US rose by 20% with the number of bee colonies rented in for watermelon production reaching 2000 (Morse and Calderone 2000).
Pest Control
The simplification of landscape composition and the decline of biodiversity may affect the functioning of natural pest control because non-crop habitats provide requisites for a broad spectrum of natural enemies, and the exchange of natural enemies between crop and non-crop habitats is likely to be diminished in landscapes dominated by arable cropland. Pest control has often been highlighted as an important ecosystem service provided by biodiversity (Mooney et al. 1995) and one that is threatened by modern agricultural practices (Naylor and Ehrlich 1997). Intensification of agriculture tends to simplify landscapes systems (Swift et al. 1996), reducing natural enemy diversity (Basedow 1990; Andersen and Eltun 2000). Although this is often known to destabilize arthropod populations (Swift et al. 1996), it often results in pest outbreak. A Study by Wilby et al. (2002) shows that with the increasing strength of species composition effects, pest control became less resistant, on average, to reduction of natural enemy species richness. Natural pest control is enhanced in complex patchy landscape with a high proportion of non-crop habitats as compared to simple large-scale landscapes with little associated non-crop habitat. Natural enemy populations were higher and pest pressure lower in complex landscapes versus simple landscapes (Wilby et al. 2002). Landscape-driven pest suppression may result in lower crop injury, although this has rarely been documented. Enhanced natural enemy activity was associated with herbaceous habitats in 80% of the cases (e.g. fallows, field margins), and somewhat less often with wooded habitats (71%) and landscape patchiness (70%). The similar contributions of these landscape factors suggest that all are equally important in enhancing natural enemy populations. Diversified landscapes hold most potential for the conservation of biodiversity and sustaining the pest control function (Bianchi 2006).
Conclusion and Synthesis
The finding of Kremen et al. (2002) shows that by having natural and semi-natural habitat near crop patches, that native bee community can provide pollination services that are equivalent to managed honey bees. Availability of critical resources influences the abundance and diversity of pollinators in the wild (Kremen et al. 2007). By having natural and semi-natural habitat, which has the ability of providing these necessary resources, near crop habitat, the amount and stability of pollination services generally increased (Kremen et al. 2002, Kremen et al 2004); but when agriculture is increased, there is a reduction in the diversity and abundance of pollinators by reducing and altering, in both space and time, the availability of floral resources (Kremen et al. 2007).
Bee foraging and pollination are affected by spatial arrangement of additional flowering patches, the diversity of flowers in these flowering patches, the spatial scale at which the flower visitor perceives variation flower abundances and the distribution of nesting sites (Kremen et al. 2007, Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002, Tscharnkte et al. 2007). In agricultural fields, that are isolated from natural and semi-natural habitats, the diversity and abundance of native bees and the pollination services that they provides were below that necessary threshold to produce marketable products (Kremen et al. 2002). Overall complexity of the landscape is reduced during agricultural intensification because natural non-crop habitat is fragmented and is located in less productive areas at greater distances to farms. Therefore, managing for diversity of bees, though both farming practices and including natural and semi-natural habitat in close proximity, pollination requirements can be met (Kremens et al. 2002, Tscharnkte et al. 2007).
References
-Anderson, A., and R. Eltun. "Long-term developments in the carabid and staphylinid fauna during conversion from conventional to biological farming." Journal of application entomology 124 (2000): 51-56.
-Baggen, L. R. and Gurr G. M. 1998. The influence of food on Copidosoma koehleri, and the use of flowering plants as a habitat management tool to enhance biological control of potato moth. Biological Control 11, 9-17.
-Basedow, T. "Effects of insecticides on Carabidae and the significance of these effects for agriculture and species number." The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies (1990): 115-25.
-Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H., and Tscharntke, T. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. of the R. Soc. 273, 1715-1727.
-Bugg, R. L., Anderson, J. M. Thomsen, C. D. and Chandler J. 1998. Farmscaping in California:managing hedgerows,roadside and wetland plantings, and wild plants for biointensive pest management. In: Enhancing biological control: habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests UC Press. 339-74.
-Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Cerny, M., De Blust, G., De Cock, R., Diekötter, T., Dietz, H., Dirksen, J., Dormann, C., Durka, W., Frenzel, M., Hamersky, R., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Koolstra, B., Lausch, A., le Coeur, D., Maelfait, J. P., Opdam, P., Roubalova, M., Schermann, A., Schermann, N., Schmidt, T., Schweiger, O., Smulders, M. J. M., Speelmans, M., Simova, P., Verboom, J., van Wingerden, W. K. R. E., Zobel, M., Edwards, P. J. 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J. of Appl. Ecol. 45, 141-150
-Burel, F. and Baudry, J. 2003. Landscape Ecology: Concepts, Methods, and Applications. Science Publishers
-Daily, G.C. et al. 1997. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Data available online at: http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ForestEconomics/Economics-Daily97.pdf accessed November 15, 2009
-Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kleijn, D., and Tscharntke, T. 2007. Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J of Appl. Ecol. 44, 41-49
-Klien, A., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., and Tschantke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. of the R. Soc. 274, 303-313
-Kremen, C., N. M. Williams and R. W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. PNAS 99(26), 16812-16816
-Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Bugg, R. L., Fay, J. P., and Thorp, R. W. 2004. The area requirement of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1109-1119
-Kremen, C., Williams, M.N., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vázquez, D. P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Greenleaf, S. S., Keitt, T. H., Klein, A., Regtz, J., and Ricketts, T. H. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organism: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 10, 299-314
-Kremen, C. and M. Vaughan. Pollination Services to Crops in Yolo Co., California: working towards restoration. Data available online at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agps/C-CAB/Castudies/pdf/6-023.pdf accessed November 15, 2009
-Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., and Gurr, G. M. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pest in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45, 175-201
-Lee, J. C., G. E. Heimpel, and G. L. Leibee. 2004. Comparing floral nectar and aphid honeydew diets on the longevity and nutrient levels of a parasitoid wasp. Entomology Experiment Application 111, 189-99.
-Losey, E.L. and M. Vaughan. 2006. The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects. BioScience 56(4), 331-323
-Marini, L., Fontana, P., Battistii, A., and Gaston, K. J. 2009. Agricultural management, vegetation traits and landscape drive orthopteran and butterfly diversity in grassland-forest mosaic: a multi0scale approach. Insect Conserv. And Diversity 2, 213-220
-Mooney, H., J. Lubchenco, R. Dirzo, and O. Sala. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:basic principles. Global Biodiversity Assessment In: Enclopedia pf Life Support Systems 279-323.
-Morse, R. A. and N. W. Calderone. 2000. The Value of Honey Bees As pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000. Pollination 2000. Cornell University.
-Naylor, R. L., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Natural pest control services and agriculture. Nature's Services In: Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA 151-74.
-Nee, S. 2004. More then meets the eye: Earth's real biodiversity is invisible, whether we like it or not. Nature 429, 804-05.
-Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharnkte, T. 1999. Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator communities and seed set. Oecologia 121(3), 432-440.
-Steffan-Dewenter, I, Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Theis, C., and Tscharntke, T. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83, 1421-1432
-Swinton, S. M., Frank Lupi, G. P. Robertson, and S. K. Hamilton. 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64(2), 245-52.
-Swift, M. J., J. Vandermeer, P. S. Anderson, C. K. Ong, and B. A. Hawkins. "Biodiversity and agroecosystem function." Functional roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective (1996): 261-97.
-Tylianakis, J. M., R. K. Didham, and S. D. Wratten. 2004 Improved fitness of aphip parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 85, 658-66.
-Tscharntke, T., Klien, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Theis, C. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857-874
-Tscharntke, T., Bommarco, R., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Kleijn, D., Rand, T. a., Tylianakis, J. M., van Nouhuys, S., and Vidal, S. 2007. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol. Cont. 43, 294-309
-Wilby, Andrew, and Matthew B. Thomas. 2002 Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecology letters 5, 353-60. Print.
-Winfree, R., Williams N. M., Gaines, H., Ascher, J. S., and Kremen, C. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. of Appl. Ecol. 45, 793-802
-Zhang, W. et al. 2007. Ecosystem Service and Dis-Service to Agriculture. Ecological Economics 64, 253-260
Natural and semi-natural habitats that can be retained in turn may provide for greater number of beneficial insects and the services that they provide (e.g., Holzschuh et al. 2007, Kremen et al. 2007, Winfree et al. 2008). These habitats are stable resources of perennial plants that are necessary for pollinators, predators and parasitoids, by supplying a continuous nectar resources, alternative prey sources and natural nesting habitats (Kremen et al. 2004, Winfree et al. 2008, Tschanrtke et al. 2007). High landscape heterogeneity with more non-crop habitat has a higher diversity of flowering and perennial plants and therefore a higher diversity of beneficial insects (Holzchuh et al. 2007, Klein et al. 2007, Tschanrtke et al. 2007).
Landscapes with high heterogeneity in land use/land cover type, should have higher levels of species diversity (Burel and Baudry 2003, Tscharkte et al. 2007). Billiter et al. (2008) found that there is a positive correlation between species richness of plants and arthropods. Positive influences on beneficial insects have been seen with the spatial arrangement and larger amounts of perennial habitat (Tscharnkte et al. 2007, Marini et al. 2009).
In this synthesis, we will be examining pollination services, the impacts of pest suppression on pollinators, and how natural habitat supplies necessary resources for these beneficial insects, and how the Kremen et al. (2002) paper considers near-by natural habitat essential for pollination of watermelon crops by native bees, which are seen as having the ability to provide equivalent service to that of managed honey bee populations.
Natural Habitat
Agricultural landscapes with diverse land uses may support high levels of biodiversity of insects and provide a range of ecosystem services (Swinton et al. 2007, Zhang et al. 2007). Insects comprise the most diverse and successful group of multicellular organisms on the planet, and they contribute significantly to vital ecological functions such as pollination, pest control, decomposition, and maintenance of wildlife species (Nee, 2004). A study by Losey and Vaughn (2006) shows that the value of insect services is almost $60 billion a year in the United States, which is only a fraction of the value for all the services insects provide. Indeed, these service-providing insects are under ever increasing threat from a combination of forces, including habitat fragmentation, land cover changes, invasion of non-native plants and animals, and overuse of toxic chemicals. The evidence indicates that beneficial insects are under a steady decline, associated with an overall decline in biodiversity (Kremen et al. 2002). New evidence indicates that in some situations, the most important species for providing ecosystem services are lost first. The overall, gradual decline in species, coupled with nonlinear changes in service levels, makes it difficult to pinpoint an optimal level of annual investment to conserve beneficial insects and maintain the services they provide (Bianchi et al. 2006).
Pollination
Animal pollination is essential for the successful reproduction of most flowering plants. Pollination provides for the transportation of pollen grains, eventually fulfilling both the ecosystem service of fruit and seed production (Kremen et al. 2002). Of the estimated 240,000 species of plants, nearly 220,000, including 70% of the crops that feed human begins depend on animals, mainly insects for pollination. Research shows that over 100,000 animal species including bats, bees, beetles, birds, butterflies, and flies are responsible for providing most pollination services that perpetuate our managed ad natural fields (Daily et al. 1997).
Pollination is perhaps the best ecosystem service performed by insects (Losey and Vaughan 2006). Estimates show that about one third of our food crops are pollinated by wild pollinators. Therefore, without wild pollinators farm yield would be adversely affected, and the survival of wild plants would be uncertain. Among insects, bees constitute the most dominant taxa in providing crop pollination (Zhang et al. 2007), pollinating more than two-thirds of the world’s 1,500 crop species (Kremen et al. 2002).
Pollination by bees, whether managed or native plays one of the most important roles in ensuring survival of food and non-food crops. In the US, pollination by native bees is very important. A study conducted by Cornell University in 2000 estimated the value of bee pollination in United States to be $14.6 billion (Morse and Calderone, 2000). In addition, pollination by honey bees which was imported from Europe also plays a great role in crop pollination. However, there have been great concerns about the invasion and success of the more aggressive African honey bee and the decline of native bees. Questions abound as to whether put more conservation efforts in protecting managed honey bees, or divert most of the resources in managing natural ecosystems upon which native bees depend. Another recent study by Kremen and Vaughan (2009) still on watermelon, a crop with high pollination demand, observed that wild bee community can provide sufficient pollination services for watermelon. Thus conserving native habitats can perpetuate the life of native pollinators and meet pollination needs of our crops. However, it is apparent that higher bee diversity, both managed and native correlates with higher diversity of flowering plants (Kremen et al. 2002).
Perhaps the importance of bee pollination in the US can be explained by watermelon production. Between 1997 and 2000, watermelon production in the US rose by 20% with the number of bee colonies rented in for watermelon production reaching 2000 (Morse and Calderone 2000).
Pest Control
The simplification of landscape composition and the decline of biodiversity may affect the functioning of natural pest control because non-crop habitats provide requisites for a broad spectrum of natural enemies, and the exchange of natural enemies between crop and non-crop habitats is likely to be diminished in landscapes dominated by arable cropland. Pest control has often been highlighted as an important ecosystem service provided by biodiversity (Mooney et al. 1995) and one that is threatened by modern agricultural practices (Naylor and Ehrlich 1997). Intensification of agriculture tends to simplify landscapes systems (Swift et al. 1996), reducing natural enemy diversity (Basedow 1990; Andersen and Eltun 2000). Although this is often known to destabilize arthropod populations (Swift et al. 1996), it often results in pest outbreak. A Study by Wilby et al. (2002) shows that with the increasing strength of species composition effects, pest control became less resistant, on average, to reduction of natural enemy species richness. Natural pest control is enhanced in complex patchy landscape with a high proportion of non-crop habitats as compared to simple large-scale landscapes with little associated non-crop habitat. Natural enemy populations were higher and pest pressure lower in complex landscapes versus simple landscapes (Wilby et al. 2002). Landscape-driven pest suppression may result in lower crop injury, although this has rarely been documented. Enhanced natural enemy activity was associated with herbaceous habitats in 80% of the cases (e.g. fallows, field margins), and somewhat less often with wooded habitats (71%) and landscape patchiness (70%). The similar contributions of these landscape factors suggest that all are equally important in enhancing natural enemy populations. Diversified landscapes hold most potential for the conservation of biodiversity and sustaining the pest control function (Bianchi 2006).
Conclusion and Synthesis
The finding of Kremen et al. (2002) shows that by having natural and semi-natural habitat near crop patches, that native bee community can provide pollination services that are equivalent to managed honey bees. Availability of critical resources influences the abundance and diversity of pollinators in the wild (Kremen et al. 2007). By having natural and semi-natural habitat, which has the ability of providing these necessary resources, near crop habitat, the amount and stability of pollination services generally increased (Kremen et al. 2002, Kremen et al 2004); but when agriculture is increased, there is a reduction in the diversity and abundance of pollinators by reducing and altering, in both space and time, the availability of floral resources (Kremen et al. 2007).
Bee foraging and pollination are affected by spatial arrangement of additional flowering patches, the diversity of flowers in these flowering patches, the spatial scale at which the flower visitor perceives variation flower abundances and the distribution of nesting sites (Kremen et al. 2007, Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002, Tscharnkte et al. 2007). In agricultural fields, that are isolated from natural and semi-natural habitats, the diversity and abundance of native bees and the pollination services that they provides were below that necessary threshold to produce marketable products (Kremen et al. 2002). Overall complexity of the landscape is reduced during agricultural intensification because natural non-crop habitat is fragmented and is located in less productive areas at greater distances to farms. Therefore, managing for diversity of bees, though both farming practices and including natural and semi-natural habitat in close proximity, pollination requirements can be met (Kremens et al. 2002, Tscharnkte et al. 2007).
References
-Anderson, A., and R. Eltun. "Long-term developments in the carabid and staphylinid fauna during conversion from conventional to biological farming." Journal of application entomology 124 (2000): 51-56.
-Baggen, L. R. and Gurr G. M. 1998. The influence of food on Copidosoma koehleri, and the use of flowering plants as a habitat management tool to enhance biological control of potato moth. Biological Control 11, 9-17.
-Basedow, T. "Effects of insecticides on Carabidae and the significance of these effects for agriculture and species number." The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies (1990): 115-25.
-Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H., and Tscharntke, T. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. of the R. Soc. 273, 1715-1727.
-Bugg, R. L., Anderson, J. M. Thomsen, C. D. and Chandler J. 1998. Farmscaping in California:managing hedgerows,roadside and wetland plantings, and wild plants for biointensive pest management. In: Enhancing biological control: habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests UC Press. 339-74.
-Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Cerny, M., De Blust, G., De Cock, R., Diekötter, T., Dietz, H., Dirksen, J., Dormann, C., Durka, W., Frenzel, M., Hamersky, R., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Koolstra, B., Lausch, A., le Coeur, D., Maelfait, J. P., Opdam, P., Roubalova, M., Schermann, A., Schermann, N., Schmidt, T., Schweiger, O., Smulders, M. J. M., Speelmans, M., Simova, P., Verboom, J., van Wingerden, W. K. R. E., Zobel, M., Edwards, P. J. 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J. of Appl. Ecol. 45, 141-150
-Burel, F. and Baudry, J. 2003. Landscape Ecology: Concepts, Methods, and Applications. Science Publishers
-Daily, G.C. et al. 1997. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Data available online at: http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ForestEconomics/Economics-Daily97.pdf accessed November 15, 2009
-Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kleijn, D., and Tscharntke, T. 2007. Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J of Appl. Ecol. 44, 41-49
-Klien, A., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., and Tschantke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. of the R. Soc. 274, 303-313
-Kremen, C., N. M. Williams and R. W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. PNAS 99(26), 16812-16816
-Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Bugg, R. L., Fay, J. P., and Thorp, R. W. 2004. The area requirement of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1109-1119
-Kremen, C., Williams, M.N., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vázquez, D. P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Greenleaf, S. S., Keitt, T. H., Klein, A., Regtz, J., and Ricketts, T. H. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organism: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 10, 299-314
-Kremen, C. and M. Vaughan. Pollination Services to Crops in Yolo Co., California: working towards restoration. Data available online at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agps/C-CAB/Castudies/pdf/6-023.pdf accessed November 15, 2009
-Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., and Gurr, G. M. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pest in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45, 175-201
-Lee, J. C., G. E. Heimpel, and G. L. Leibee. 2004. Comparing floral nectar and aphid honeydew diets on the longevity and nutrient levels of a parasitoid wasp. Entomology Experiment Application 111, 189-99.
-Losey, E.L. and M. Vaughan. 2006. The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects. BioScience 56(4), 331-323
-Marini, L., Fontana, P., Battistii, A., and Gaston, K. J. 2009. Agricultural management, vegetation traits and landscape drive orthopteran and butterfly diversity in grassland-forest mosaic: a multi0scale approach. Insect Conserv. And Diversity 2, 213-220
-Mooney, H., J. Lubchenco, R. Dirzo, and O. Sala. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:basic principles. Global Biodiversity Assessment In: Enclopedia pf Life Support Systems 279-323.
-Morse, R. A. and N. W. Calderone. 2000. The Value of Honey Bees As pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000. Pollination 2000. Cornell University.
-Naylor, R. L., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Natural pest control services and agriculture. Nature's Services In: Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA 151-74.
-Nee, S. 2004. More then meets the eye: Earth's real biodiversity is invisible, whether we like it or not. Nature 429, 804-05.
-Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharnkte, T. 1999. Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator communities and seed set. Oecologia 121(3), 432-440.
-Steffan-Dewenter, I, Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Theis, C., and Tscharntke, T. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83, 1421-1432
-Swinton, S. M., Frank Lupi, G. P. Robertson, and S. K. Hamilton. 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64(2), 245-52.
-Swift, M. J., J. Vandermeer, P. S. Anderson, C. K. Ong, and B. A. Hawkins. "Biodiversity and agroecosystem function." Functional roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective (1996): 261-97.
-Tylianakis, J. M., R. K. Didham, and S. D. Wratten. 2004 Improved fitness of aphip parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 85, 658-66.
-Tscharntke, T., Klien, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Theis, C. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857-874
-Tscharntke, T., Bommarco, R., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Kleijn, D., Rand, T. a., Tylianakis, J. M., van Nouhuys, S., and Vidal, S. 2007. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol. Cont. 43, 294-309
-Wilby, Andrew, and Matthew B. Thomas. 2002 Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecology letters 5, 353-60. Print.
-Winfree, R., Williams N. M., Gaines, H., Ascher, J. S., and Kremen, C. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. of Appl. Ecol. 45, 793-802
-Zhang, W. et al. 2007. Ecosystem Service and Dis-Service to Agriculture. Ecological Economics 64, 253-260
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Suzan et al (2009) reflection
The spread of disease is one of the most prominent global environmental issues in ecology and has consequences in politics, economy and health. Hantavirus, causes of hemorrhagic fevor and Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in Asia, Europe and the America, can be transmitted directly through inhalation of aerosolized viruses or contact to a variety of rodent species. In the study done by Suzan et al. (2009; PLoS one:4(5) e5461), they looked at how species diversity plays a role on the Hantavirus in Southern Panama. They measured the amount of antibodies to the SNV nucleocapsid antigen found in the blood. They predicted that in areas of high species diversity, there will be a reduction Hantavirus pathogen. They found that as they removed non-reservoir species, that both the abundance and prevalence of Hantavirus increased. They also found, as the abundance of the reservoir species increased, in the removal sites, the prevalence of Hantavirus also increased. Therefore, high diversity regulated the abundance of of the primary reservoir species and reduces pathogen transmission and disease-risk. An increase in diversity can be an ecosystem service by keeping disease transmission low. By keeping diversity high in areas, the risk of the spread of diseases is low and therefore the risk to spread diseased to humans can be low also.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Welsh and Ollivier (1998) responce
In the terms of stream conservation, Welsh and Ollivier (Ecological Applications: 8, 1118-1132) did a good job at showing distinctly how the influxes of sediment from road construction affected amphibian densities and populations, within the vicinity of human populations. By comparing amphibian population in streams impacted by sedimentation to neighboring, unimpacted streams, the authors provided results describing three common species’ responses as being species specific and varying by mesohabitat type. In doing so they provide evidence that careful monitoring of these populations in streams, especially in areas in the vicinity of human disturbance, may be a valuable indicator of ecosystem health. They displayed that amphibians could be good in monitoring stream ecosystems. However, this paper did very little to address an ecosystem service, as I see it's definition being the monitory value that the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life.
Ecosystem health surveys main aim is to establish how well the habitat can sustain populations of native organisms. These are not done for the direct benefit of humans. Indirectly, a well maintain ecosystem can benefit humans in many ways, including, among other things, better fishing habitats, aesthetic views, etc. I see no direct monetary value to humans in use of amphibians as indicators. Furthermore, I see that, in the terms of monitoring streams that other indicators has done a good job as indicators (specifically, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera relative abundance and diversity); through theses taxa are, according to our authors "short-lived, explosive breeders, or subject to seasonal movements...which can complicated their use as bioindicators."
In all, every measure that that these papers make are indirectly for the benefit of humans, most of the time monetarily, in one way or another (i.e., aesthetic, water quality, etc.). This is just a new "hip" term that is used to catch the eye and interest of the reader.
Ecosystem health surveys main aim is to establish how well the habitat can sustain populations of native organisms. These are not done for the direct benefit of humans. Indirectly, a well maintain ecosystem can benefit humans in many ways, including, among other things, better fishing habitats, aesthetic views, etc. I see no direct monetary value to humans in use of amphibians as indicators. Furthermore, I see that, in the terms of monitoring streams that other indicators has done a good job as indicators (specifically, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera relative abundance and diversity); through theses taxa are, according to our authors "short-lived, explosive breeders, or subject to seasonal movements...which can complicated their use as bioindicators."
In all, every measure that that these papers make are indirectly for the benefit of humans, most of the time monetarily, in one way or another (i.e., aesthetic, water quality, etc.). This is just a new "hip" term that is used to catch the eye and interest of the reader.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Carlsson et al 2004 reflection
I have many different view-points on the paper by Carlsson et al. (2009; Ecology 85:1575-1580). On one hand, this paper was very good at teasing out how the invading species of Golden Apple Snail is negatively correlated with species richness of edible plants and macrophyte species numbers, positive relationship between Golden Apple Snail density and phytoplankton biomass; but on the other hand, I found a vague interpretation of a ecosystem service within this paper. Of course, they imply change to ecosystem function function, but do they do little to spell out how the ecosystem function in a way of an ecosystem service...that was until it was all compiled at the end. Very little of the story was told on how that increases in phytoplankton contributes to the inhibition of water filtering, nutrient retention capacity of wetlands, and human consumption of water. The authors lead a way that the reader could imply a loss of a ecosystem function, but it was not completely spelled out, and I thought that I had to make some bigger leaps to get to what they wanted me to think.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Ceballos and Ehrlich (2009) reflection
Two things hit me from this paper (PNAS 166: 3841 - 3846):
1.) "our results suggest that many more unheralded organisms in all groups have likely recently gone extinct without being noticed. That implies that levels if species extinction have been grossly underestimated." I had to reflect on this. It make sense. How are we to know what is all out there? Just like sampling regimes, I cannot know every insects that is in my prairies, that would take too much time and effort. So, one must have to expect that he/she will underestimate extinction rate.
2.) "It is also crucial that the number and diversity of populations - many of which are clearly more genetically and ecologically differentiated that previously thought - and the ecosystem services they provide, also be preserved and, where possible, restored." Yes, it is crucial to have more diverse systems so that ecosystems to function properly.
So, what I got from paper, was not on ecosystem services that organism can supply us, but on conservation. This is one reason that I really enjoy this paper, because they did not focus of the need of diverse ecosystems to serve us. This is what we need to focus on (basically because humans are already greedy enough). What need to be talked aboot is for the greater good of the ecosystem, for all organisms to be able function properly, not for our individual needs. What scientist need to be focused on, and already has is one sense or another, is how each species is critical for the correct functioning of the ecosystem. What is the fail of this paper is the use of the word "ecosyetem services" because it did not have much of an emphasis in this paper.
1.) "our results suggest that many more unheralded organisms in all groups have likely recently gone extinct without being noticed. That implies that levels if species extinction have been grossly underestimated." I had to reflect on this. It make sense. How are we to know what is all out there? Just like sampling regimes, I cannot know every insects that is in my prairies, that would take too much time and effort. So, one must have to expect that he/she will underestimate extinction rate.
2.) "It is also crucial that the number and diversity of populations - many of which are clearly more genetically and ecologically differentiated that previously thought - and the ecosystem services they provide, also be preserved and, where possible, restored." Yes, it is crucial to have more diverse systems so that ecosystems to function properly.
So, what I got from paper, was not on ecosystem services that organism can supply us, but on conservation. This is one reason that I really enjoy this paper, because they did not focus of the need of diverse ecosystems to serve us. This is what we need to focus on (basically because humans are already greedy enough). What need to be talked aboot is for the greater good of the ecosystem, for all organisms to be able function properly, not for our individual needs. What scientist need to be focused on, and already has is one sense or another, is how each species is critical for the correct functioning of the ecosystem. What is the fail of this paper is the use of the word "ecosyetem services" because it did not have much of an emphasis in this paper.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Reflecting on "Living Beyond Our Means"
The MA (http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf) has done a thorough job at pointing out the consequences of ecosystem change in the need to supply, what seems to be perceived as an "endless" supply of resources, to fit the demands for food, fresh water, fiber, and energy. The problem falls in two parts on the shoulders of humans. Firstly, the thought that these resources are thought to be limitless, and secondly, the exponential growth in human population.
How can the need for fresh water and food be met when it is projected that our population is to double in the next fifty years? Imagine, twelve billion people on earth by 2060. Even the essentials will be hard to come by especially since we completely rely on the services that nature provide. But it is hard for a government to put a limit on a person and tell them that they cannot have any more children. Will people put a limit on themselves?
Even with regulating the use of resources, we still live in a throw-away society. Space is another ultimate resource that is not hit on. Where will our waste go? How expansive and high can Mt. Rumpke be? They point out that "with the invention of synthetic material, other materials are still used in huge quantities." Synthetic material doesn't come out of nowhere. It is made from resources. Ultimately is it speeding up the uses of other resources. It is replacing one thing for another. Disposal of these synthetic material is critical because they are not degraded as quickly (or at all...but are biodegradable material degraded in a landfill).
Ultimatley popualtion has to be controlled, even if we don't want to. We need a little self-regulation, but that ultimately does not do well for economies where it will make it unstable where the bottom cannot support the top (I am getting off track).
What is the ultimate message that we can take? We must seek a better way.
How can the need for fresh water and food be met when it is projected that our population is to double in the next fifty years? Imagine, twelve billion people on earth by 2060. Even the essentials will be hard to come by especially since we completely rely on the services that nature provide. But it is hard for a government to put a limit on a person and tell them that they cannot have any more children. Will people put a limit on themselves?
Even with regulating the use of resources, we still live in a throw-away society. Space is another ultimate resource that is not hit on. Where will our waste go? How expansive and high can Mt. Rumpke be? They point out that "with the invention of synthetic material, other materials are still used in huge quantities." Synthetic material doesn't come out of nowhere. It is made from resources. Ultimately is it speeding up the uses of other resources. It is replacing one thing for another. Disposal of these synthetic material is critical because they are not degraded as quickly (or at all...but are biodegradable material degraded in a landfill).
Ultimatley popualtion has to be controlled, even if we don't want to. We need a little self-regulation, but that ultimately does not do well for economies where it will make it unstable where the bottom cannot support the top (I am getting off track).
What is the ultimate message that we can take? We must seek a better way.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ecosystem Services Reflection
The paper done by Carpenter et al. (2009, PNAS 106:1305-1312), has an overwhelming amount of detail on “Ecosystem Services” and how it attributed to “humans” or “man-kind.” I have two things to complain about right away with this idea and/or paper. Firstly, why does everything have to be attributed to “humans?” Is it in it own right to exist because of what it is? Why do “we” have to put a value on it for it to exist? Is it because the general public is too “un-educated” or “capitalistic” to understand it in any other way? Secondly, we are suppose to get this message out to the general public so that they can understand. How can we, as “scientist,” get messages out to the general public when they will not understand the jargon presented, as in this paper?
The general take home message of this paper is to have a better understanding on how to manage the relationship dynamics between human and the ecosystem that we rely on (Carpenter et al. 2009). Some of the feedbacks that were highlighted were: (i) ecosystems processes and landscape structure, (ii) provisioning and cultural ecosystem services, and (iii) human well being; and they can be looked at through three different view: local, regional and global. These are driven on both drivers on the spatial scale and time.
I found the amount of detail in "feedbacks," "drivers" and other factors sort of ridiculous. This could have been a much simpler paper (going into my second complaint above). I almost gave up, but I gave it a second (and now I found a third) chance and read it through a couple of times.
The general take home message of this paper is to have a better understanding on how to manage the relationship dynamics between human and the ecosystem that we rely on (Carpenter et al. 2009). Some of the feedbacks that were highlighted were: (i) ecosystems processes and landscape structure, (ii) provisioning and cultural ecosystem services, and (iii) human well being; and they can be looked at through three different view: local, regional and global. These are driven on both drivers on the spatial scale and time.
I found the amount of detail in "feedbacks," "drivers" and other factors sort of ridiculous. This could have been a much simpler paper (going into my second complaint above). I almost gave up, but I gave it a second (and now I found a third) chance and read it through a couple of times.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
I should be writing more...
Tuning into Headline News, like I do every morning, to catch up on things that I should really involve myself with, but tend not to because I find myself to involved with my own research. Around a week or so ago, I was appalled to hear that the federal government is considering making obesity a disability. It was a short news blip and now I cannot find news on it searching the internet. Think of it, Americans are obese enough as it is; if they would make it a law, what kind of exploitation would come of it? American’s idea of consume, consume, consume would be pushed even farther. More on this later when I have a chance…
Sorry aboot my short sabbatical away from this, I promise to wrote more in the future!
Sorry aboot my short sabbatical away from this, I promise to wrote more in the future!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
DRIVERS: Watch Out for Cyclist
We have EQUAL rights to the road. Don't honk at us, don't cut us off, and above all, keep aware if us. And CYCLIST, effing obey all street laws: stop at stop signs and lights, don't blow through them. The next time I see one of you doing that, I'll put by hand pump through your front spokes!
Here is an old video...but a good one:
Cheers,
Here is an old video...but a good one:
Cheers,
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Something that has been bothering me for a week...
A week ago, on April 01, 2009, a few colleagues and I went out for drinks at the local establishment (The Inn just down the road from Pearson Hall on campus). There were about 9 of us there talking about the normal stuff that is talked about when us scientist are drinking a couple of tasty brews. One of us started talking about over-population and how it needs to be controlled. A comment was said (which I am not going to repeat and not going to say who said it) that was sort of harsh, and I agreed with it. The fact that I agreed with it is because population growth is out of control and technological improvements in third-world countries is causing greater harm to the environment that could ever be expected. Later in the conversation, we were interrupted by a passer by. He was a fellow student (because we all had name tags on and his said that he was from the Physics Department) and he blatantly interjected his opinion into the conversation. The conversation got heated and people, colleagues of our, got up and left. Our conversations continued down the road of over population and then changed into a debate on degradation of the earth. We were headed that way as it was and that was the reason that this conversation came up. It was a nice sunny day almost in the 80s. April 1 is not really supposed to be that way, especially in the Midwest (Southwest Ohio). The passer by was on the stance that, from what I got, that we are more important than other organisms. Everything that we did as humans was “natural.” He used as example that, there is no difference in using a stick as a spear and molding metal into a gun to hunt. They were both “natural.” Everything we did to the earth is supposed to happen because earth is supposed to evolve and not be stable equilibrium. We were to “evolve” and force climate to change. He saw that as “natural.”
What he thought is that humans, as the top predator, has total control and if were to die off then another species will be dominant and do the same. Listening to him made me finally realize what other people think. To finally understand this is scary. He is obviously educated, going to Miami University and most likely a graduate student, because professors and graduate students are the only people to know about CLEP and drink free drinks. He is not educated enough on the issues that what we are doing is not natural evolution of the planet. What we are doing is destroying everything and we are actually causing our own extinction (not before we cause everything else to go extinct first). And he is okay with this. Reflect on this…
Are we supposed to use up every resource and deplete everything that is out there? We are on the though that technology will save us. What is actually happening is technology is killing us. We are coming up with new way stay global and continue to expand. When we use up one resource (i.e., oil) we only find another one to replace it (i.e., biofuel). We are making halide chemicals that are released into the atmosphere that are 17,000 times the strength of carbon dioxide on global warming. Currently, we don’t know that concentration of them in the atmosphere and the residence time for halide to break down is 550 years. We are not to slow down, we Americans are to consume everything (I could be going a little off track here). How can we get people to finally understand that what we are doing is wrong and that we aren’t just “liberal elitist” (I just heard this term used to describe anyone that drives a Toyota Prius). I don’t know, maybe it is too late and we are already past the tipping point.
This was bothering me and I just want other people to reflect on this…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)