Archive for March, 2007
< --adsense-->
answersingenesis.org
Christianity and the environment
by Carl Wieland
‘What should we think of the Greenhouse Effect?’ AiG speakers often face questions like this on environmental matters. It is helpful, even vital, to view such things from a Biblical perspective. But in a complex world, it may not be possible to give a rigidly ‘for’ or ‘against’ Christian response. Biblical principles are unchanging, but the situations we face, and the information available, are not.
Imagine you are a bureaucrat in 19th-century South America, contemplating the vast, seemingly limitless expanse of the Amazon jungle. Some poor villagers ask you for a permit to clear an acre for their crops. Or you’re the same bureaucrat in the distant future; some rich estate-owner asks if he can clear one of the last remaining stands of Amazonian trees, home of some of the rarest and most beautiful of God’s creatures, because they obstruct the breeze to his mansion. Presumably your response would be different in each case!
The Greenhouse Effect
‘Greenhouse’ dominates thinking on the environment. Certain gases in the atmosphere, chiefly water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), trap heat from the Earth, inhibiting its radiation to outer space.
Animals and humans breathe out CO2 as they ‘burn’ carbon-containing foodstuffs. Plants, in turn, powered by sunlight, absorb the CO2. Along with hydrogen from water, it is used to ‘build’ plant structures. (The process releases oxygen from the water, replenishing the oxygen consumed by animals.) Chop down a tree and burn it, and you ‘turn’ carbon into CO2. But during the tree’s lifetime of growth, it ‘mopped up’ an equivalent amount of CO2, so the books roughly balance.
In the modern world, however, the books are becoming unbalanced in two ways. First, through burning large amounts of ‘fossil fuels’ (coal and oil). The carbon in this case was buried deep in the Earth, and so it is not a part of the current ‘carbon cycle’ as above. Second, an expanding population means more housing, which displaces vegetation that would otherwise soak up CO2. Simple physics suggests that, all else being equal, the average temperature of the Earth will gradually increase due to these rising CO2 levels–hence the term ‘global warming’.
Ozone layer thinning
Between 15 and 30 km (9 and 18 miles) above the Earth, a layer of ozone gas (O3) prevents most of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays reaching the ground, and destroying most living things. Man-made chemicals such as refrigerator gases react with ozone and destroy it. Depletion of ozone within the stratosphere has been observed around the South Pole. Though distinct from the Greenhouse Effect, there is a link. Much of the photosynthesis that consumes CO2 takes place not in rainforests, but at the surface of the vast oceans, by countless trillions of microscopic plants (phytoplankton). Increased UV radiation would kill many of these aquatic plants, tipping the balance in favour of more atmospheric CO2.
The generally predicted result is an increase in mean global temperature, with effects on human society ranging from mild to catastrophic. Warmer oceans would mean more water vapour (which traps even more heat) and expanded ocean volumes. This, coupled with partial melting of the ice sheets, would raise average sea levels, submerging whole communities, even entire small island nations. The drastic weather effects could include huge droughts in Australia, flooding and landslides in the western US, and much greater hurricane/cyclone activity. Paradoxically, the Gulf Stream might slow down or stop, so northern Europe would get much colder.1
Responses to all this Greenhouse publicity range from overt panic to outright dismissal as some sort of vast conspiracy.
What is really known?
More evaporation could increase high-latitude snowfall, increasing ice cover and cooling the Earth. It should also increase cloud cover; this should reflect more solar heat back into space, thus also cooling the Earth. However, depending on the type of cloud, it could do the exact opposite, though current modelling suggests that cooling is far more likely. Atmospheric physicist Dr Larry Vardiman, of the Institute for Creation Research, calls this a created ‘thermostat’ mechanism designed to cope with minor perturbations, and which will prevent a ‘runaway Greenhouse’.2 Others disagree strongly.
Some welcome this ‘Greenhouse’ as a partial return to presumed ‘pre-Flood’ conditions. But the Bible gives very little direct information about the pre-Flood world, and computer modelling has too many limitations to be more than speculative.
The Greenhouse Effect seems a classic example of a ‘wisdom issue’, i.e. one on which there is no direct Biblical teaching. Christians should feel free to make up their minds on the basis of the best available evidence. As is common in science, the ‘right’ conclusion might vary as more and more is learned.
Environment as religion
With the decline of Christianity in the face of the evolutionary onslaught, environmentalism seems like a substitute religion, with an established dogma; ‘plastic is bad, recycling is virtuous, forests are sacred sites, developers are satanical’.3 And much environmentalism is fanned by evolutionary pantheism. ‘Mother Earth’ is the creative goddess, who must be protected and pacified. But in any issue, we should be prepared to think carefully, and not let our reaction to extremists goad us into overlooking any Biblical principles that apply.
Some Christians reject any environmental concern, saying that since God is in control overall, we should just let Him look after it. But in Scripture, the sovereignty of God never allows us to evade our responsibility. For instance, we don’t expect God to take out our garbage (even though we know He is in control) nor to look after the sewage problems for a village or a city. So why should we not support efforts to keep clean something on a grander scale (the atmosphere, or the oceans)? It may appeal to intuition to ‘leave the sky in God’s hands’–but the Bible does not suggest that God is more in control of big things than small things; not even a sparrow falls without the Father’s oversight (Matthew 10:29).
Speaking of sparrows, I recall watching a nest with four baby birds. Each of the occupants, in polite sequence, pivoted its tail out of the nest and sent its dropping down to the ground below. God gave these tiny birds programmed instincts to avoid fouling their own nest. We have been given, instead, wisdom to make conscious choices to avoid fouling our individual, community and global ‘nest’.
Dominion and stewardship
All Christians seem to agree that man has been given dominion over the Earth, as a steward under God. But what are the limits of responsible stewardship? Man’s dominion extends to the fish of the sea (Genesis 1:26). But where is the fine line between catching a fish to feed one’s family, and huge factory vessels, towing the ‘walls of death’–kilometres-long drift-nets scouring everything clean, edible or not, and devastating long-standing fishing grounds?
The same concepts apply to forestry and tree-felling. The Christian does not see nature as sacred in itself. While respecting a tree as a creation of God, and thus not to be wantonly destroyed, he will have no problem as such with chopping down a tree to build a house. But in our high-tech age, rainforests are disappearing at a rate equivalent to one football field in area every few seconds.
Determining the boundary between use and abuse, between responsible resource management and rapacious plunder, is obviously a complex ‘wisdom’ issue, not one with a single Biblical answer that fits all cases. Scientific data, if one can separate out the biases of the researchers, is vital–for instance, reliably knowing the regenerative capacities of logged forests and fresh plantations.
Many Bible-believing Christian professionals who have access to much relevant data are becoming increasingly convinced that talk of crisis, particularly in the area of waste accumulation, cannot easily be dismissed as simply scaremongering–see interviews at bottom of page.
‘Don’t fight the Curse’
Some point out that this cursed world is running down, and that the only ultimate answer is God’s creation of a new Heaven and Earth. The physical world is indeed running down. Given enough time, the sun and all other atomic processes would (without God’s intervention) fizzle out, all energy would become evenly distributed, and so all things would be completely dead. However, local aspects of this entropy principle can be reversed here on Earth through intelligent effort. And though this ‘running down’ of the physical world is a net effect of the Curse, the entropy law is not responsible for social/moral decay, or environmental irresponsibility–human choices are involved.
A small paper calling itself A Christian Response to the Ecological Movement said, ‘No conservational program will reverse God’s decision to continue to frustrate the ecology of a sinful world … conservational efforts cannot solve a problem which is only redeemable by God’s hand of recreation.’
This is really saying that since the Curse is God’s doing, we should not oppose it. But applying this consistently would mean we should not try to fight raging disease epidemics, e.g. by vaccination. However, Scripture continually praises the sorts of actions that are local and temporary attempts to overcome the Curse’s effects. The Curse brought man into conflict with man–yet ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew 5:9). The Curse brought disease and suffering–yet alleviating suffering is not only consistent with Scripture, it follows Christ’s healing example.
The Curse also brought an alienation between nature and man; so environmental responsibility which seeks to oppose some of those effects of the Curse is not ‘opposing God’, even though a new creation will eventually be needed.
Saving species
The effort to conserve as many species as possible often presents as the need to preserve diversity, much of it in rapidly disappearing tropical rainforests.
We have often shown how new species (not kinds) can arise through time, by reshuffling and loss/thinning of information. Because there is no input of new information, no evolution is involved. Inbreeding gene pools with large amounts of diversity are broken down by natural selection and genetic drift into multiple pools of smaller amounts of information. Thus the ‘dog’ kind leaving the Ark rapidly diversified into dingoes, wolves, coyotes, etc. Along the way, mutations have added increasing genetic load, further degrading information. Such downhill changes have greatly increased diversity, while reducing the capacity for further change and adaptation. The ultimate end of this process is extinction, not evolutionary progress.
Why preserve species? There are man-centred pragmatic reasons. For example, rainforest species may contain many as-yet-undiscovered therapeutic chemicals. This highlights a moral component to environmental issues. God commands us to do good to all men (Galatians 6:10). Depleting genetic richness may deny a future cancer victim a cure. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ also applies to stealing another person’s access to fresh water or clean air. I currently judge global warming issues in that light–though the science is still fuzzy, if there is a possible danger that excess CO2 emissions may harm future generations, why not err on the side of caution, and support ‘cleaner’ energy research such as solar or wind power?
World agricultural authorities are also keen to preserve biological diversity. They know that the ‘wild types’ of the plants from which our cereals etc. were bred contain vast storehouses of information that have been depleted through breeding selection–a strong creation argument.4
There are deeper considerations, too. The evolutionary conservationist contemplating the extinction of, say, a magnificent wild bird might feel a profound sense of loss, lamenting the ‘millions of years’ evolution allegedly took to make it. Since random mutations will not again come to exactly the same combination, he can say–‘there’re no more of these being made’.5
In fact, the information present on the unique DNA of any species, as the unique blueprint of its kind, originated during Creation Week, directly from the mind of God. Though thinned out by selection/adaptation, lost or corrupted by mutation, we don’t see it added to. (In fact, we never see information arising spontaneously from raw, unprogrammed matter, except by the operation of mind.) So the permanent loss of some of this divinely implanted information makes me, too, see extinction as tragic. Because Creation was a ‘one-off’ event, I can also say, ‘There’re no more of these being made.’
But there is a crucial difference, illustrated by the smallpox virus. Because it needs a human host, it has probably been eradicated by mass inoculation–except for two frozen laboratory batches. Destroy these, and the virus is gone forever. If it is wrong to allow the Mottled Mongolian Mongoose to become extinct, why not save the smallpox virus, also a ‘part of nature’? Non-Christians (and Christians who fail to acknowledge the Genesis reality that this is not the good world God originally made, but its cursed and groaning remnant) have no consistent basis for favouring one type of creature over another. I suggest that the appropriate Christian attitude is, ‘Wipe it out!’. The Earth is ultimately for people, and the virus represents some of the worst aspects of the Curse.6
Is technology the problem?
Big technology makes it easier to pollute or destroy in a big way, overwhelming the checks and balances God has created to allow (fallen) ecosystems to respond to disruption. But it does not follow that technology per se is opposed to sound environmental ethics. In fact, man’s ingenuity and technology may enable us to build super-efficient waste-free factories, or develop non-polluting power sources. Zero growth, which seems logical in some ways, may be a very selfish option for the developed world to foist upon its poorer neighbours. Christian thinking on the environment cannot sidestep issues such as poverty, oppression, corruption, etc. Of course, applying large-scale technology to assist ‘nature’, such as damming watercourses, may make matters worse. But this is because of the ingenuity and complexity inherent in the created world, not a fault of technology in principle.
Similarly, genetic engineering may aggravate ecological problems, but it might also actually help to overcome them. Constructing new combinations of DNA, and thus even new species (not kinds), is no more un-Biblical than breeding new varieties of corn. The idea of engineered solutions to ecological problems sounds like heresy–yet Eden was a garden, not a wilderness.
Down with people
The extreme wing of environmentalism is the animal rights movement. Their leading advocate, Princeton professor Peter Singer, is a fanatical (but wholly consistent) evolutionist. He says, ‘There is no ethical basis for elevating membership of one particular species into a morally crucial characteristic. From an ethical point of view, we all stand on equal footing–whether we stand on two feet, four feet, or none at all.’7
In practice, however, animal-righters usually regard man as lower than the animals. After the Valdez oil spill which killed 30,000 birds (about 0.1% of the area’s population), some called it a worse tragedy than the 1984 chemical leak in Bhopal, India. But this killed more than 3,000 people and injured 200,000 others.8 Many animal liberationists have said it is acceptable to use ‘defective’ humans in scientific tests as opposed to testing things on healthy animals.9
This is violently opposed to Biblical reality. Man made in the image of God, no matter if unborn, frail or retarded, has intrinsic rights not shared by animals. The Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘You are of more value than many sparrows’ (Luke 12:7). Of course, the Bible gives no mandate for cruelty to animals; Proverbs 12:10 teaches that a righteous person will regard their needs.
Getting the balance right
God owns the Earth, not man, so as responsible stewards we are not free to do as we please with it (Psalm 24:1). But we have also been given dominion (rule) over it, and told to subdue it for our own needs (Genesis 1:26—28). Mankind, not the California Cockroach, is, after all, the purpose of Creation. But man was required to dress and keep the garden, not plunder it (Genesis 2:15).
Beyond that, our attempts as Christians to make decisions on environmental matters can, in each case, be based on a pragmatism born of concern for others, and on wisdom (James 1:5), refined and informed by the best available scientific data on these continually changing and complex issues.
References and notes
This current of warm water from the tropics is probably ‘driven’ by cold water sinking in the freezing Arctic. Return to text.
Impact #339, Acts and Facts, September 2001. Return to text.
Hugh Mackay, The Adelaide Advertiser, 2 May 1990. Return to text.
Batten, D., What! … no potatoes?, Creation 21(1):12—14, 1998. Return to text.
Some say that a consistent evolutionist should not complain about extinction because it is part of evolution. This is true, but may be a little unfair. The evolutionist believes that it took a very long time for nature to create these things, and that the abnormal selection pressure applied by mankind nowadays is forcing extinction to occur at a far greater rate than new ones could possibly evolve. Return to text.
For a discussion of the problem of how ‘bad’ things arose post-Fall, see Chapter 6 of The (new and expanded) Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, 1999. Return to text.
Singer, P. (Ed.), In Defence of Animals, Basil Blackwell Limited, Oxford, p. 6, 1985. Return to text.
Time, p. 57, 26 March 1990. Return to text.
Frey, R. & G., Journal of Medical Ethics 9:94—97, 1983. Return to text.
March 30th, 2007
botit.botany.wisc.edu
This month’s fungus is another common inhabitant of bark or wood mulch. Although less than a centimeter in diameter, Cyathus striatus often grows in huge clusters, thus making them easily visible, even from some distance. They’re cute little fungi, almost always found wherever there is wood, as long as you look hard enough. The common name “bird’s nest fungus” should be obvious to anyone looking at the small mass of “eggs” within the small “nests” or cups of the fruiting bodies. The “eggs” in the nest contain the basidiospores within them. These eggs (technically called peridioles) are actually analogous to tiny puffballs (like Lycoperdon or Calvatia gigantea) in that they contain the basidiospores inside of them. The basidiospores are borne on small basidia that line the small chambers inside of the eggs. However, the spores are not forcibly ejected from the basidia as they are in Agaricus, Amanita, Boletus, and almost all of the mushroom formers.
Besides being cute, the shape of the bird’s nest is actually functional! The nest acts as a splash cup. When raindrops fall into the cup, the eggs are splashed out some distance away from the nest. If they land on a suitable substrate, they will germinate and form new mycelium that can grow into new fruiting bodies. When immature, the nest is covered by a brown membrane called an epiphragm, which eventually breaks down, usually my mechanical or microbial degradation. This opens up the “cup,” and the rain can splash out the eggs. Once that happens, there is a thread, called a funiculus, attached to each peridiole that follows the egg on its watery journey. There is also a little “weight” called a hapteron on the end of each funiculus. [These mycologists seem to have a name for every little piece of every single fungus. sheesh…] When the peridiole hits a substrate, the funiculus wraps around the substrate, “powered” by the centripetal force of the hapteron. If all goes well, the peridiole becomes attached to its new wooden substrate when the spores germinate and invade the wood. The image to the right shows these various parts of a cross section of a splash cup of Cyathus. A=peridioles (eggs), B=funiculus and hapteron (cord and anchor) C=glebal chamber lined with basidia D=epiphragm (covering of the young splash cup). This procedure sounds pretty complicated, but it must work pretty well, given the large masses of these fruiting bodies on wood everywhere.
Although they are cup shaped, bird’s nest fungi are not related to cup fungi such as morels, false morels, scarlet cups, eyelash cups, and black tulip fungi, all of which are members of the Ascomycota. These Ascomycota have their sexual spores, the ascospores, contained within small sacs called asci. These ascospores are usually forcibly ejected by the ascus. However in the puffballs and bid’s nests, there are chambers in the gleba (flesh) of the fruiting body. Lining the inside of these chambers are basidia that bear basidiospores. In most cases the basidiospores merely fall off the basidium and wait for some external force to spread the spores around.
The bird’s nest fungi are members of the Gasteromycetes, an unnatural grouping of basidiomycete fungi in which the basidia mature inside an enclosed area before the fruiting body is mature. This is an unnatural group, because we now know, through DNA analysis, that the Gasteromycetes really belong to many other evolutionary or phylogenetic groups. For example, the true puffballs (Lycoperdales, e.g. Lycoperdon pyriforme and Calvatia gigantea) seem to be rather closely related evolutionarily to members of the genus Agaricus, which includes the pizza mushroom, Agaricus bisporus, and the Prince, Agaricus augustus. Other Gasteromycetes (literally, “stomach fungi”) include the stinkhorns, and the false puffballs, such as Pisolithus, the dog turd fungus. Another member of this group is the cannonball fungus Sphaerobolus stellatus, which is much smaller than the bird’s nest fungi and contains only a single peridiole that is shot out of the small nest by a trampoline-like mechanism.
I hope you enjoyed learning about the cute little bird’s nest fungus, Cyathus striatus and its relatives.
Look for this fungus in your bark or wood mulch right now! I bet you’ll find it there, although it’s much more common in the fall. But the spring is certainly the time of year when other kinds of birds are making their nests in our part of the world. See if you can find it– it’s more common than you might think!
March 28th, 2007
Driving along, I glanced over and saw a bird’s nest. Woven into the tangle of a dense roadside shrub, it stood out because nature had placed a large snow blob upon it. The nest appeared baseball-sized, maybe a cardinal or catbird’s in light of its shrubby location. Seeing it inspired me to contemplate nests. Every one is a marvel of nature.
I got thinking about strong nests and realized one of them happens to be about half-dollar-sized. Ounce for ounce, a ruby-throated hummingbird’s nest matches up against others much larger. Its inch-wide cup fashioned from milkweed fluff and plant down draws strength from a special covering. This covering’s first component is a coating of pale green foliose lichens. But that’s not the secret ingredient. Once the lichens are positioned, hummingbirds lash them in place with spider silk. If there happens to be an invasion of tent caterpillars nearby, hummingbirds sometimes will substitute tent webbing for silk.
Nature’s most complex nests might be those of the orioles, hanging baskets of perfect design. Woven in seven short days from bits of string, strips of grapevine bark, plant fibers and animal hair, an oriole nest takes shape initially as two separately fabricated walls. When they’re completed, the female oriole weaves them into a drooping sac lined with a bed of fine grasses. This bed assures chicks a pillow to rest on while spring breezes rock their knit cradle.
One other species might contend with orioles for the bird world’s most intricate nest. That’s the cliff swallow and the mud gourd it builds. Cliff swallows create these gourd nests by scooping mud into their beaks. They then roll the mud into small globs, pasting one glob at a time onto those already positioned. The end result: an adobe abode with an entrance that tilts slightly downward to keep the rain out.
Cliff swallows nest colonially, fastening one gourd above another on a building, bridge abutment or cliff. Secure in their brick-like nests, cliff swallow chicks needn’t fret over tumbling out. That’s not true in the case of most mourning dove offspring. Their parents lay claim to the dubious distinction of creating one of nature’s most insecure nests.
Often found on a horizontal branch in an evergreen tree, these jerry-built platforms of twigs appear destined to crumble within a few days. Incredibly, they don’t, despite the fact someone gazing up from below could look right through a loose grid that reminds one of tossed Pickup Sticks.
I’ve read one theory that attempts to explain such slipshod construction. Because the male mourning dove collects every nest twig, it postulates, and because he always stands on his mate’s back before giving them to her, by the time she begins weaving them into a nest, her attention to detail has somehow flown out of the window.
Despite this, things work out and mourning doves prosper. I await their loud cooing this spring.
March 27th, 2007
warnercnr.colostate.edu/class_info
Introduction: The Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) population is thought to be declining in most of its breeding range, including Colorado. As for most grassland birds, the primary threats are habitat loss and degradation. The preferred nesting habitat of the sparrow is mixed-grass habitats including prairie, hayfields, pastures, and grassy fallow fields. The species nests on or near the ground in open-cup nests, and its nest is usually associated with some plant cover. The sparrow nests from mid-April to late-July in north-central Colorado, and the Environmental Learning Center (ELC) has had what is considered healthy nesting populations. The golf mushroom is an important food resource for Grasshopper Sparrows during the spring nesting season.
Grasshopper Sparrows feed on the runners of this fungus which lie just beneath the soil. There is an edible and an inedible form of the mushroom. The golf mushroom gets it name from the fact that it leaves a hard outer shell that comes to the surface in fall and during winter these “golf balls” can be seen on the surface. During the “golf ball” stage, the previous spring’s edible form can be determined by markings on the ball that resembles writing. The ELC has a variety of invasive, noxious weeds on its property, and CSU plans on grazing the ELC this summer using special goats that feed on noxious weeds. Unfortunately, these goats will also eat the edible golf mushrooms. Grazing is an allowable activity under the management guidelines of the City of Fort Collins Department of Natural Resources, as long as some appropriate mitigation has been agreed upon. Suitable mitigation in this case will involve restoring native grassland fields in NE Colorado that CSU owns by seeding these fields with golf mushrooms at densities similar to the ELC. You are hired by CSU to develop the mitigation plan and the first task is to assess the density of edible golf mushrooms on a representative 1.0 ha plot of mixed-grass habitat at the ELC. So, to determine the appropriate mitigation, you must first estimate the density of edible golf mushrooms. Golf mushrooms can be cryptic and difficult to find on snow, therefore, the count of golf mushrooms needs to be adjusted by the proportion of golf mushrooms actually counted. That is, you need to estimate p, the probability of detecting a golf mushroom. To accomplish this task, you choose to use a multiple occasion, closed population estimation procedure (a type of capturerecapture technique). The detection (“capture”) history for each edible golf mushroom will be input into program MARK to estimate the abundance of edible golf mushrooms in the pasture from the previous spring. The design of the study is to search for “golf balls” on >6 occasions, and to record the capture history for each “golf ball” that is located 1 or more times. Procedure: [Data required for this study will be collected during this field lab and analyzed next week.] 50 m x 100 m For data collection, 5-8 observers will search for “golf balls” on each occasion within a 50 m x 100 m area. Each group of observers will line up on the baseline (to be identified) and walk in a straight line to the other side of the pasture while searching for “golf balls” seen nearby (the amount of time that you search will be limited). Normally, once an object of interest is found it is “marked” and re-released into the population where it has the potential to be recaptured on subsequent occasions. When you find a “golf ball” you will quickly examine it to see if it has what appears to be a number. If it does you will record the number and the trapping occasion. If it does not you will record the number 0 (to indicate an inedible golf ball) and the trapping occasion. [So for every “golf ball” that you encounter you will enter a number and the trapping occasion.] At the end of our survey period, the sequence of occasions that a particular nest is located represents its capture history, and the 1 st occasion that a “golf ball” was located is considered when it was marked. Capture history data allow us to estimate the capture probability per “golf ball”; and, to determine if p varies by time (capture occasion), individual “golf ball” (individual heterogeneity), or by whether a “golf ball” had been captured previously (behavior). In our lab, think about what might cause p to vary by time, heterogeneity, or behavior? These data will be summarized into the capture histories (in X-matrix form) for analysis via MARK. Capture Histories constitute the data required for analysis, and take the form: There are as many capture histories as there are unique objects/individuals captured during our survey. [Something to think about] Is there a way to estimate the entire population of “golf balls”, i.e., edible and inedible combined using the data collected today? While collecting data, keep in mind the following assumptions of this methodology: • Geographic Closure: The population has a defined boundary. • Demographic Closure: No birth, death, immigration, and emigration occur during the survey, i.e., over all occasions. In terms of nests, this means that nests are not gained or lost during the time period. • No tag loss. Must be able to tell if the nest has been tagged before or not. • No measurement or sampling error. All nests are identified and recorded correctly. Homework Assignment (Worth 100 points; Report due in class March 1): By the end of Friday, please email Beth your data in an excel file with two columns: occasion and “golf ball number”. So if you collected data on occasions 1, 3, & 5 and on occasion 1 detected golf ball nos. 88 and 113; detected no golf balls on occasion 3, on occasion 5 detected golf ball numbers 4 and 77, then your data will look like. You will learn the skills in a few weeks to analyze these data in program MARK. After analyzing the data, a report will be due that encompasses both the data collection and data analysis. While you cannot finish the report until after doing the analysis, it is always a good idea to write up as much of the report as possible prior to the analysis (e.g., methods, parts of the introduction and objectives) while data collection is still fresh in your memory. Remember, the key parameter to estimate is the density of edible golf mushrooms in the pasture to be impacted by the grazing. This density will be used to determine the appropriate mitigation. Your report should be written in the basic scientific format: 1. Introduction — State the problem and purpose (objectives) of the study, etc. 2. Study Area and Methods – provide information on the study area, methods of data collection (field procedures and process), methods of data analysis, etc. 3. Results — what did you find out? What were the results of your analyses? Did you find evidence of variation in time, behavior, or heterogeneity in p? What statistical results are important to provide to the reader? Tables? Figures? 4. Discussion — what do you conclude from your study and what interpretations can you make? What do you recommend to your supervisors for the appropriate mitigation? How confident are you in your recommendation? How do your results compare with other studies of grasshopper sparrows? 5. Literature Cited — This is a scientific report and thus, just as in FW370, you should include citations to pertinent literature, literature on Grasshopper Sparrows is a good start. Your report must include at least 5 citations of journal articles. 6. Also include an Abstract and an appropriate Title as if you were submitting this paper to the general manager of the Department of Natural Resources. Follow the guidelines covered in past scientific writing courses such as FW 370 on what information should be covered in each section. Proper organization of your report will constitute a portion of your grade on this and all remaining lab assignments. You can also find additional information about the Grasshopper Sparrow in journal publications by searching the libraries scientific databases such as “Web of Science”. Below are 2 general web pages that you can start at but these are not journal articles: If you use materials from publications (or web sites…but web sites do not count as the journal citations), make sure to properly cite your sources! If you use passages word-for-word, they should be quoted and cited, but quotes should be rare, i.e., most scientific writing involves paraphrasing passages to make specific points with the inclusion of a citation.
March 26th, 2007
people.cornell.edu
he bird’s nest bin, also known as the binless bin, is a naturally constructed compost bin that you build out of the large, coarse plant materials that you have around the yard. Instead of throwing the big stalky stuff, like broccoli and kale plants, prunings from bushes, sunflower stalks, etc., into one pile together with the small, easy-to-degrade stuff like young weeds and kitchen food waste, they are separated so that the heavy-duty materials make up the walls and the finer materials are in the center. What a simple concept and how beautifully it works!
Without so much bulky material mixed in, the finer materials get to break down faster. The bin looks much neater than if everything is thrown together. Reminiscent of a bird’s nest, the binless bin blends naturally into the landscape with charm and character. No need to buy plastic bins or build other structures.
It’s easy to make a bird’s nest bin. Pound four stakes into the ground to make a square four to six feet wide. These will provide all the structural support you need. Within the square, lay a few stalks crisscross on top of each other on the ground. This will allow some air to come through the bottom of the pile and be drawn upward through the pile to enhance breakdown. Around the perimeter, lay down your coarse materials to make walls eight to ten inches thick: big weeds, spent vegetable plants and flowers, prunings from shrub or trees, edges of sod you’ve dug up, old hay if you’ve got an excess of it–whatever you’ve got around, that you want to get rid of.
The center of the pile is reserved for the small stuff and the rotten stuff. Add food waste from the kitchen, the little weeds from the garden, the rotten fruit found under the trees. Always remember to cover up any food waste so as not to invite animals. Try to have a supply on hand at all times of something, like weeds, leaves, wood chips, or straw, to layer in with your food scraps and cover it up. If you don’t have enough leaves of your own, there’s a plentiful supply every fall, when people kindly leave these bags full of the precious compost ingredient (and excellent mulching material, but that’s another story) on the curb.
Keep the walls higher than the center at all times, so nothing falls out. Once the bin is a few feet high, after a garden season, you can let it sit and start another. After a year or so the interior of the bin left sitting will become dark compost, unrecognizable in origin, ready to enrich your garden. The wall material will have only partially broken down and can be re-used for a new bin.
Eventually you might want to expand to a three-bin unit. The bin in the middle shares a wall with the other two. This way you can always have one bin sitting and ripening; another to add to, and the third for harvesting finished compost.
Try it and see the magic of composting for yourself!
March 23rd, 2007
Daily News & Analysis, India - Mar 14, 2007
BEIJING: Shark fin delicacies may be off the menu in Beijing before 2008 Olympics if the local government concurs with a proposal made by a lawmaker, so as to curry favour with visiting foreigners who may feel offended, the state media reported on Wednesday.
The issue of banning shark fin delicacies was submitted by Xu Zhihong, a deputy to the National People’s Congress and president of the prestigious Peking University, who said that shark’s fin soup, bear’s paw and swallow’s nest considered delicacies and typically served at elaborate banquets might upset foreign guests.
“Serving shark fin to foreign guests during the Olympic Games could greatly hurt China’s image, and officials should start removing the dish from the dining tables right now,” he said.
He added that restaurants should also keep away from other wildlife like snakes during the Games which will commence on August 8, 2008.
“It is not only an environmental issue, but one that has a direct bearing on the image of Chinese people,” Xu was quoted as saying by ‘China Daily’.
Figures show that shark fin imports have been soaring in China in recent years despite efforts by Chinese NBA star Yao Ming and gymnastics legend Li Ning last year to convince people to stop eating the dish.
March 22nd, 2007
PensacolaNewsJournal.com, FL - Mar 17, 2007
Birdlovers open their hearts — and their yards — to these faithful part-time residents
Kate S. Peabody
kpeabody@pnj.com
They have no money. They pay no rent, and just like Aunt Edna from Omaha, they show up every spring to enjoy our Southern hospitality and soak up the sun.
Who are they? The Martins — the purple martins, the largest member of the North American swallow family.
It’s that time of year when these feathered friends return to the Panhandle to nest and raise their young before returning home to winter in South America.
Known as much for their beauty as their loyalty, the males are a deep, solid sparkling purple and have a forked-tail. Female purple martins are equally dazzling, but with a grey underbelly.
And they can sing, too.
While visiting our area, purple martins are at the mercy of their human “landlords” for temporary housing.
But while purple martins are popular among avid birders nationwide, there is concern among experts about their future: Their numbers here and in other areas are declining.
“They’re very sociable,” John Atteberry of Cantonment said. “They count on us —— if we don’t put up houses, we could lose them.”
Here, a few enthusiasts share their thoughts:
March 21st, 2007
jcs.biologists.org
K Prydz and KT Dalen
Department of Biochemistry and Institute for Nutrition Research, University of Oslo, Norway. kristian.prydz@biokjemi.uio.no.
Proteoglycans are widely expressed in animal cells. Interactions between negatively charged glycosaminoglycan chains and molecules such as growth factors are essential for differentiation of cells during development and maintenance of tissue organisation. We propose that glycosaminoglycan chains play a role in targeting of proteoglycans to their proper cellular or extracellular location. The variability seen in glycosaminoglycan chain structure from cell type to cell type, which is acquired by use of particular Ser-Gly sites in the protein core, might therefore be important for post-synthesis sorting. This links regulation of glycosaminoglycan synthesis to the post-Golgi fate of proteoglycans.
March 20th, 2007
KIE RELYEA
THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
Bellingham Herald, WA
Think of cliff swallows as social butterflies that come late to the party.
That’s because they like to hang out with others of their kind, with reports of as many as 3,500 nests in one area. And while tree, barn and violet-green swallows have started to return to Whatcom County — bringing the first promise of spring with them — cliff swallows aren’t expected back from their wintering grounds in the south end of South America until the end of this month.
Their name derives from their old haunts.
“Rock cliffs were their natural habitat until humans built large structures which are, in effect, ‘wooden cliffs’ to which the swallows adapted,” explains Paul Woodcock, president of the North Cascades Audubon Society.
Which is why their nests, made of mud and their saliva, are found under the eaves of buildings, especially barns, he adds. “Locally, many people call them ‘eave swallows.’ ”
Good grub to them is flying insects, which is why you’ll find them foraging in circles in the air. Even if you don’t know much about birds, you’ve probably heard of cliff swallows. They’re the ones that leave in swirling masses from San Juan Capistrano.
Cliff swallows look like barn swallows but the former are plumper with a pale gray nape, dark throat, light belly and a short, square tail. Both use mud to make their nests, though the shapes are different.
“The barn swallow’s nest is an open cup while the cliff swallow’s is globular and usually narrows at the top to a small round entrance,” Woodcock says.
Sources: Paul Woodcock; “The Sibley Guide to Birds,” by David Allen Sibley; Birdweb.org
March 16th, 2007
Philadelphia Inquirer, PA
By Adrian Higgins
Washington Post
A birdhouse lends so much charm and color to a garden that, you could argue, it doesn’t even need feathered tenants to make us happy.
But how much more satisfying it is to have songbirds around, and to see them flitting back and forth in May with insects for their young, knowing that you lent a hand.
Now is the time to put up birdhouses, so you don’t miss the boat for the year. Spring may seem still far off, but nesting birds are beginning the search for a place to raise a new brood.
The chickadee started looking in earnest for digs in early March, says Craig Tufts, chief naturalist at the National Wildlife Federation.
Birdhouses draw the types of birds that would normally find quarters in tree cavities, Tufts says. For urban gardeners, common inhabitants include chickadees, wrens, titmice and nuthatches.
If you live close to old fields or orchards, the Eastern bluebird is likely to inhabit purpose-built houses on posts there. This bird, once waning, has made a stunning comeback in the last couple of decades, no doubt through the network of boxes built and maintained by rural nature lovers.
If you live close to parkland or golf courses, even in urban areas, Tufts says, you may have luck attracting the bluebird. The same boxes in open settings can even lure the tree swallow, “which is gorgeous, pure white underneath and metallic dark blue above.”
The Carolina wren, quick to nest and roost in cans, pots and shelving, is harder to get to live in a birdhouse, Tufts says. It’s another wren that likes to nest in a box, the house wren, that is migratory.
Various birdhouse options are available, from the ecologically savvy and ornithologically correct cedar boxes branded by the National Audubon Society, to the more wacky and singular houses made by Recycled Birdhouse Co. in Rome, Maine.
The Audubon boxes are made under license by WoodLink Ltd. of Mount Ayr, Iowa, and are available at bird-supply stores, hardware stores and independent garden centers, WoodLink president David Nylen says.
Recycled Birdhouse Co. was founded by Mark Pelletier and Curtis Brown as a workshop for disabled adults. Its birdhouses have a lot of character, not least their roofs fashioned from shingles of pine-cone scales. Many are sold as folk art and used as decorative elements in porches or hung from exposed beams.
All can go outside, some attract birds, others don’t, Pelletier says, noting: “Birding is a funny science.”
Some people delight in buying old and antique birdhouses, which can be used outdoors for their intended purpose, as long as they are weatherproofed and free of lead paint, which isn’t good for birds or humans.
Gardeners I know who place a lot of stock in bright colors have discovered the Garden Path in Portsmouth, N.H. Founded by Doug Ostrander and his wife, Anne Rugg, the company is known for its Gothic-inspired houses in gaudy but strangely harmonious shades of green, yellow, blue and turquoise, to name a few.
The post-mounted versions create interesting vertical accents in the landscape. The styles are pricey (the 7-foot-6-inch Sugarloaf retails for $395) and have spawned foreign knockoffs, Ostrander says. His are made from materials including cedar, laminated turned pine, and poplar.
Weekend carpenters, of course, can make their own birdhouses from plans available on the Internet. One source is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (www.birds.cornell.edu/birdhouse/resources).
If you follow at least some of the rules of design and placement, and put up enough boxes by mid-March, you’re likely to get some tenants. Tufts says birds need these sanctuaries, especially as we keep yards increasingly free of organic clutter.
“We have a tendency to worry about dead and dying trees, and have them taken down,” he says.
•
If you want to draw songbirds to your garden, look for birdhouses that, ahem, fit the bill.
Comfort. Birdhouses should be at least three-quarters of an inch thick to provide insulation against cold and heat. The roof should be sloped and watertight to keep rainwater out. The base should have drainage holes to prevent rainwater from soaking nests and tenants. One side of the house should hinge open to allow old nest material to be cleaned out now, before nesting season begins. Place houses away from high-traffic areas, such as a front walk.
Safety. Houses should be hung or positioned well above the ground, at least five feet, to keep predators at bay. If you attach one to a tree, keep it away from a branch where cats might gain access. Try to place the house facing east, away from prevailing winds, and in an area of partial shade.
Customized entrance. The diameter of the hole is critical to getting the birds you want. If it’s too large, you may get starlings instead of chickadees. A chickadee entrance, for example, should be 11/8 inches across; one for nuthatches, house wrens and titmice should be 11/4 inches, and a bluebird hole, 11/2 inches. Some retailers sell metal-framed holes that screw onto the house, to prevent woodpeckers and squirrels from enlarging the entrances.
The commute. For birds, the job is to find food and a place to bathe. Shorten the search by providing birdbaths and feeders. And avoid pesticides, which kill the insects that fledglings need.
March 15th, 2007
Previous Posts