The journal's main purpose was to give notice to ecological happenings in the world today. It didn't take sides as to what should or shouldn't be done. It was merely just a conversation starter. Kind of like the man that stands around and between a democrat and republican and says something to make them slug it out. The magazine never offered up solution. It just stated instances that were happing around the world and let the reader decide for themselves.
Or thats at least what I thought until I read over some of the articles again. The journal never said that what humans were doing was wrong, but it also never wrote about anything that didn't have man's interference causing problems. This has led me to believe that the journal is taking a more liberal view on ecology.
It does not come right out and say that man is wrong and has failed the ecosystems of the world, but it doesn't have to. The articles say it themselves. For instance, The caribou article states that the caribou are losing winter habitat that cannot be replaced. It didn't say that humans are wrong for doing this, but it also didn't talk about the quality wood products coming out to the region. This leads me to believe that the journal is trying to cause action through small amounts of knowledge. The caribou are losing habitat and it needs to be stopped is the real action behind the article.
I have been trying to think of a good way to symbolize what the journal is doing to no avail. But I think the best way to describe it is throwing a rock into a pond. The rock is little, much like the journals articles, but over time, the ripples spread out and have touched all corners of the pond. The all corners of the pond would be everybody knowing about the situation and doing something about. If the journal trys to make a big deal about it, then people may play them off as activists or something. By just saying a little bit and not causing a big stir. The journal reaches everybody and lets those opinions build on its' underlying one. Not bad for a journal, once I looked a little deeper I could see true reason for the writing
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Winter habitat ecology of mountain caribou in relation to forest management
This weeks article from the journal of applied ecology shows just how important trees are to world.
Mountain caribou in British Columbia rely on one main food source during the harsh Canadian winters. They feed exclusively on aboreal lichens that grow on the trunks of trees in old growth forests. These forests are made of one tree mostly due to the elevation and temperature. Subalpine Fir makes up the majority of the forest that the Caribou call home during the winter. Not only do the trees offer forage, but also shelter from the wind and falling percipitation. Caribou herds number in the thousands, meaning that hundreds of thousands of acres of forest are needed to sustain the herd. The caribou nibble the lichens off the tree trunks from snow level to as high as they can stand on their hind legs. After that, they must move on to greener tree trunks.
Caribou would not have a problem at all if Subalpine Fir was not a timber commodity that grows on sites easily harvested. This means that the caribou are competing with humans for survival. Young stands are not harvested because the trees are way to small due to the short growing seasons, so old growth areas must be cut. The caribou have no choice but to move on or result to hiding on the steep slopes where equipment can not harvest.
Little diversity in tree species due to the climate leaves the caribou with only two options, find food or die. They can not just switch over and eat snow and they are not strong enough to move the many feet of snow to get to grass underneath. Will Mans appetite for cheap forest resources result in the decline of caribou in British Columbia
Mountain caribou in British Columbia rely on one main food source during the harsh Canadian winters. They feed exclusively on aboreal lichens that grow on the trunks of trees in old growth forests. These forests are made of one tree mostly due to the elevation and temperature. Subalpine Fir makes up the majority of the forest that the Caribou call home during the winter. Not only do the trees offer forage, but also shelter from the wind and falling percipitation. Caribou herds number in the thousands, meaning that hundreds of thousands of acres of forest are needed to sustain the herd. The caribou nibble the lichens off the tree trunks from snow level to as high as they can stand on their hind legs. After that, they must move on to greener tree trunks.
Caribou would not have a problem at all if Subalpine Fir was not a timber commodity that grows on sites easily harvested. This means that the caribou are competing with humans for survival. Young stands are not harvested because the trees are way to small due to the short growing seasons, so old growth areas must be cut. The caribou have no choice but to move on or result to hiding on the steep slopes where equipment can not harvest.
Little diversity in tree species due to the climate leaves the caribou with only two options, find food or die. They can not just switch over and eat snow and they are not strong enough to move the many feet of snow to get to grass underneath. Will Mans appetite for cheap forest resources result in the decline of caribou in British Columbia
Thursday, October 28, 2010
return of a king
This weeks article from the Applied journal of ecology is about the American Chestnut tree and its' struggles over the past century. nobody here probably knows about the chestnut tree since is has been gone since about the 1920's. I blight from Asia was imported on some other trees that infected the some chestnut trees in the bronx zoo in the early 1900's and shot through its range in a short amount of time. The American chestnut made up 60 percent of the forest trees in its native Appalachian mountain range.
The trees were killed off, but they can resprout stump sprouts from stumps of dead trees because the blight does not attack roots so the root systems live. This means that small trees can survive until they reach about 20 feet tall and then the blight attacks and kills them.
Efforts have been made by the American chestnut foundation and others to bring the chestnut back since it was such an important part of the eastern forest. They have been cross breeding with Asiatic strains that are resistant to the blight and reintroducing them into the wild after they breed back in 99% of the American genes. No large trees have been able to survive yet, but researchers are getting closer. They have found a fungus that kills the blight and does not attack any other trees so it can be introduced into the chestnut range. The only problem is that it does not move fast so people would basically have to individually inoculate each chestnut tree with it which would devastate funds. This is a never ending battle and it is going to be a long road, but with help and pray, there is a possibility that Americans will see the giant chestnut trees of the past one day.
The trees were killed off, but they can resprout stump sprouts from stumps of dead trees because the blight does not attack roots so the root systems live. This means that small trees can survive until they reach about 20 feet tall and then the blight attacks and kills them.
Efforts have been made by the American chestnut foundation and others to bring the chestnut back since it was such an important part of the eastern forest. They have been cross breeding with Asiatic strains that are resistant to the blight and reintroducing them into the wild after they breed back in 99% of the American genes. No large trees have been able to survive yet, but researchers are getting closer. They have found a fungus that kills the blight and does not attack any other trees so it can be introduced into the chestnut range. The only problem is that it does not move fast so people would basically have to individually inoculate each chestnut tree with it which would devastate funds. This is a never ending battle and it is going to be a long road, but with help and pray, there is a possibility that Americans will see the giant chestnut trees of the past one day.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Making a new leak to fix another leak
Humans have long been controlling every aspect of nature the best that we can. This is certianly evident in the timber industry where money is on the line every time a tree is dies. The article from The Journal of Applied Ecology for this week discusses how one rescue effort has helped to cause another problem.
The Rocky Mountian region of the U.S. and Canada is losing thousands of acres of lodgepole pine a year to the mountian pine beetle. Lodgepole pine is an important timber resource and also food resource for animals that feed on the nutrient rich pine nuts. Loggers are cutting as fast as they can to head off the beetle before it is too late and companies are planting young lodgepole pines as fast as they can to replace the ones that had to be removed. Here in this solution is the problem and is causing an even bigger problem.
Lodgepole pines do not grow in unevenage stands because the seeds do not germinate until after a hot fire(called serontanous seeds) so all the trees are the same age in stands that stretch for hundreds of miles (these stands were growing before timber was activily managed by timber companies beginning in the early 1900's so none of them have been planted by man). So nobody knew that old trees near young trees could result in large die offs of younger trees. Old Lodgepole pines are host to a root collar beetle, the Warren Root Collar beetle. The Mountian pine beetle attacks the tree above the ground while the other attacks roots. The root collar beetles do not kill large trees due to defense chemicals that keep them from getting inside the root, but can kill young trees. The young trees' roots have less protective chemicals and there for can be attacked without being able to fight off the beetles like the old trees. Since the young trees are an easier target, the beetles move from the old tree to the young trees and kill millions of newly planted trees every year.
The timber industry saw planting many young trees adjacent to old stands as a way to quickly offset the massive kills caused by the mountian pine beetle. They however did not know that there was another predator lurking just a few feet away that was waiting for a such an easy target. Not only are all the old trees still being killed by mountain pine beetle, but all the young ones are being killed by the Warren Root Collar beetle and their numbers have exploded due to the millions of young pines planted near older ones. Trying to save the future actually may have destroyed it if a solution is not found quickly. steps have been taken to clear land of all remaining old pines before young trees are planted so there will be less chance that beetles can get to the young trees.
The Rocky Mountian region of the U.S. and Canada is losing thousands of acres of lodgepole pine a year to the mountian pine beetle. Lodgepole pine is an important timber resource and also food resource for animals that feed on the nutrient rich pine nuts. Loggers are cutting as fast as they can to head off the beetle before it is too late and companies are planting young lodgepole pines as fast as they can to replace the ones that had to be removed. Here in this solution is the problem and is causing an even bigger problem.
Lodgepole pines do not grow in unevenage stands because the seeds do not germinate until after a hot fire(called serontanous seeds) so all the trees are the same age in stands that stretch for hundreds of miles (these stands were growing before timber was activily managed by timber companies beginning in the early 1900's so none of them have been planted by man). So nobody knew that old trees near young trees could result in large die offs of younger trees. Old Lodgepole pines are host to a root collar beetle, the Warren Root Collar beetle. The Mountian pine beetle attacks the tree above the ground while the other attacks roots. The root collar beetles do not kill large trees due to defense chemicals that keep them from getting inside the root, but can kill young trees. The young trees' roots have less protective chemicals and there for can be attacked without being able to fight off the beetles like the old trees. Since the young trees are an easier target, the beetles move from the old tree to the young trees and kill millions of newly planted trees every year.
The timber industry saw planting many young trees adjacent to old stands as a way to quickly offset the massive kills caused by the mountian pine beetle. They however did not know that there was another predator lurking just a few feet away that was waiting for a such an easy target. Not only are all the old trees still being killed by mountain pine beetle, but all the young ones are being killed by the Warren Root Collar beetle and their numbers have exploded due to the millions of young pines planted near older ones. Trying to save the future actually may have destroyed it if a solution is not found quickly. steps have been taken to clear land of all remaining old pines before young trees are planted so there will be less chance that beetles can get to the young trees.
just goes to show that before you patch a hole, make sure you arent making an even bigger one in the process. the photo is a little hazy but this is what a mountian pine beetle looks like, rather small to cause such a big problem
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
sex in the woods
Thats right, we are going to talk about how trees reproduce and I know you might have been expecting something else from the title. But over the years I have learned that trees may not be the most exciting topic in the world and that you have to trick people into listening to you sometimes so while you are here you should read.
An article in the Journal of Applied Ecology caught my attention this morning because it was talking about tree reproduction and diversity is being limited due to development into rural areas. The problem is that a large majority of trees fertilize by either wind blowing pollen or rain water splashing it around and by building and cutting forest land into many sections, people are killing the genetic diversity of the forest. Wind can't blow pollen for miles and rain water certainly can't get it that far so trees are mating with fewer of their own kind. This may not seem like a big issue, but if only one tree fertilizes another, the genetics of all the seeds are absolutely the same. This means that they all have the same weaknesses and can be wiped out in one swoop leaving the forest barren. The more holes that humans poke in the forest, the greater the number of trees that lose genetic diversity, the greater the chance of a lot of them dying off when one disease or insect attacks. This would mean that wood production would go down and a lot of the stuff you use has some wood in it. If you brushed your teeth this morning, there was a little bit of wood in your toothpaste and if you drove to school this morning, there was wood in your tires and most likely in the plastic on your dash. While not the wood that you and I most often think about, those things are made up of the many components of wood such as cellouse and lignin. Just a little bit to think about.
I have greatly summerized the article to make it reasonable to understand, but there is an issue here, because genetic diversity plays a big role in many species survival. Without, the entire species can be affected by the same pressures and die off. I used to have a teacher that loved to say the stuff we were learning was as interesting as watching pine trees have sex, but in reality this stuff is pretty interesting because America would not be the country it is today without its' forest resources.
An article in the Journal of Applied Ecology caught my attention this morning because it was talking about tree reproduction and diversity is being limited due to development into rural areas. The problem is that a large majority of trees fertilize by either wind blowing pollen or rain water splashing it around and by building and cutting forest land into many sections, people are killing the genetic diversity of the forest. Wind can't blow pollen for miles and rain water certainly can't get it that far so trees are mating with fewer of their own kind. This may not seem like a big issue, but if only one tree fertilizes another, the genetics of all the seeds are absolutely the same. This means that they all have the same weaknesses and can be wiped out in one swoop leaving the forest barren. The more holes that humans poke in the forest, the greater the number of trees that lose genetic diversity, the greater the chance of a lot of them dying off when one disease or insect attacks. This would mean that wood production would go down and a lot of the stuff you use has some wood in it. If you brushed your teeth this morning, there was a little bit of wood in your toothpaste and if you drove to school this morning, there was wood in your tires and most likely in the plastic on your dash. While not the wood that you and I most often think about, those things are made up of the many components of wood such as cellouse and lignin. Just a little bit to think about.
I have greatly summerized the article to make it reasonable to understand, but there is an issue here, because genetic diversity plays a big role in many species survival. Without, the entire species can be affected by the same pressures and die off. I used to have a teacher that loved to say the stuff we were learning was as interesting as watching pine trees have sex, but in reality this stuff is pretty interesting because America would not be the country it is today without its' forest resources.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
social network
I just got back from watching the new movie about facebook and I must say it was pretty good. I hope that he was actually that sarcastic during the depositions as the movie shows.
What really caught my attention was one of the twins saying they were gentleman and that gentleman don't wine or sue others for small problems. While they totally went against this and got a lot of money, I wish that more people in the U.S. today had the viewpoint that they had at the begining of the movie,
To many people today are looking for a quick fortune and that usually comes from suing somebody that has money. I would see it all the time at work from people suing the power company because they knew that there were deep pockets even if the power company was not part of the issue at all. This happens all the time with lawyers looking for the richest organizations to sue even when they are not closely related to problem. Not that any of that matters though, because the lawyers want a jury trial and as soon as that happens the plaintiff gets all of the pathos because most people see corporations as greedy and bad. So the company loses the suit thanks to the modern day robin hoods that think they are stealing from the rich to give to the poor when in reality they are just stealing to give to the lazy.
in reality, Robin Hood was a criminal too that should have been hanged
What really caught my attention was one of the twins saying they were gentleman and that gentleman don't wine or sue others for small problems. While they totally went against this and got a lot of money, I wish that more people in the U.S. today had the viewpoint that they had at the begining of the movie,
To many people today are looking for a quick fortune and that usually comes from suing somebody that has money. I would see it all the time at work from people suing the power company because they knew that there were deep pockets even if the power company was not part of the issue at all. This happens all the time with lawyers looking for the richest organizations to sue even when they are not closely related to problem. Not that any of that matters though, because the lawyers want a jury trial and as soon as that happens the plaintiff gets all of the pathos because most people see corporations as greedy and bad. So the company loses the suit thanks to the modern day robin hoods that think they are stealing from the rich to give to the poor when in reality they are just stealing to give to the lazy.
in reality, Robin Hood was a criminal too that should have been hangedThursday, September 30, 2010
idea for Group project
I have good idea for my team "the best" to write their memo on. The School of forestry and agriculture is not longer thanks to budget cuts that have taken nearly 50% of the money for the past two years. It is sad that the major that has helped me so much over the past four years cease to exist.
This is where my idea comes into play. The college is going to need memos to tell people about the changes that are occurring or already have. Writing a memo of this magnitude will be one of the better ones I think. I am going to ask the head of the old school of forestry Pat Layton and see if she has any chances for us to do it. Clemson may not let us do it due to public relation reasons, but it is worth a try anyway.
This is where my idea comes into play. The college is going to need memos to tell people about the changes that are occurring or already have. Writing a memo of this magnitude will be one of the better ones I think. I am going to ask the head of the old school of forestry Pat Layton and see if she has any chances for us to do it. Clemson may not let us do it due to public relation reasons, but it is worth a try anyway.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
That's right, I said it
I was saddened the other day after riding by Bowman field in the afternoon on my way back from school. I looked out across the field and saw three things. There were some kids playing lair up under the trees, and then some ultimate frisbee players, and some kids playing soccer.
I was saddened because the kids that everybody usually makes from of, the kids playing lair, were the best athletes on the field that day.
That's right folks, I said it. I do not view soccer or ultimate frisbee as sports or as taking any particular skill level above being able walk. I know, you have to be in shape or not have a lot of ambition to touch and stand there if you want to play. But honestly, thats its one requirement, run around. What happened to the days when every little kid wanted to grow up to be a football, baseball, or basketball star. Now they just want to go to soccer practice. They learn to get extra excited when one goal is scored. You don't see baseball players or football players go on a two minute love fest with each other because they score a run. No, they walk over and say good job because that is what you are supposed to do.
I have never had the agony bestowed upon me of having to kick a soccer ball (thank God), nor have I competed in any of the other activities that were happening on Bowman that day. I know that there are a ton of people that disagree with me, but there are probably a few that don't. Madison is most likely one of them and anybody else that is a real athlete.
Just trying to stir some things up and make class a little more interesting
I was saddened because the kids that everybody usually makes from of, the kids playing lair, were the best athletes on the field that day.
That's right folks, I said it. I do not view soccer or ultimate frisbee as sports or as taking any particular skill level above being able walk. I know, you have to be in shape or not have a lot of ambition to touch and stand there if you want to play. But honestly, thats its one requirement, run around. What happened to the days when every little kid wanted to grow up to be a football, baseball, or basketball star. Now they just want to go to soccer practice. They learn to get extra excited when one goal is scored. You don't see baseball players or football players go on a two minute love fest with each other because they score a run. No, they walk over and say good job because that is what you are supposed to do.
I have never had the agony bestowed upon me of having to kick a soccer ball (thank God), nor have I competed in any of the other activities that were happening on Bowman that day. I know that there are a ton of people that disagree with me, but there are probably a few that don't. Madison is most likely one of them and anybody else that is a real athlete.
Just trying to stir some things up and make class a little more interesting
Thursday, September 16, 2010
directions and practicing what you preach
I was just in Comm 250 class, yes I'm taking it a little late in my college career but it makes me one of the cooler people in the class because I'm older.
One speech was on how to implement a capitalistic system. The person giving the speech did a good job on presenting how America had been set up to help people that work hard. He told how the government had limited interaction and companies were allowed to make their own decisions that could hurt or help them. What he did after that was what caught my eye.
We started having a discussion on advertisement and whether or not it should be regulated. The general view of the class was that the government should decide how much a company should invest in advertising. I was on the other side, because if it is your money, you can do with it what you want to. I felt that I would have another team mate, the person that had given the directions on how to set up a capitalistic system. This was not the case, he stated that there should be set quantities on how much companies should spend on advertising. Well, that killed his capitalistic directions because he totally went against them. So my question is how do you take directions from somebody that does not believe what they are giving the directions on? it is somewhat like do as I say, not as I do.
One speech was on how to implement a capitalistic system. The person giving the speech did a good job on presenting how America had been set up to help people that work hard. He told how the government had limited interaction and companies were allowed to make their own decisions that could hurt or help them. What he did after that was what caught my eye.
We started having a discussion on advertisement and whether or not it should be regulated. The general view of the class was that the government should decide how much a company should invest in advertising. I was on the other side, because if it is your money, you can do with it what you want to. I felt that I would have another team mate, the person that had given the directions on how to set up a capitalistic system. This was not the case, he stated that there should be set quantities on how much companies should spend on advertising. Well, that killed his capitalistic directions because he totally went against them. So my question is how do you take directions from somebody that does not believe what they are giving the directions on? it is somewhat like do as I say, not as I do.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
directions
I will give it to the people that write directions for a living. It is rather hard to phrase everything in a manner that just regular people will be able to understand. Every time I start to write my instructions, I have to go back and rethink about how to dull them down so somebody without hardly any technical background can follow them. But they also have to be good enough that somebody with technical background will use them and not cast the directions aside. That could lead to even more problems since they didn't follow them because they thought that they already knew the directions by seeing the first couple steps that most would probably know
The fire extinguisher directions get straight to the point and are easy to use. Just about anybody that has the function of their arms is should be capable of following the directions. Just pull the little pin, aim and shoot. while the directions that I'm writing are a little more complicated and there probably needs to be some technical background to understand them. I want to make it as easy as the fire extinguisher directions.
The fire extinguisher directions get straight to the point and are easy to use. Just about anybody that has the function of their arms is should be capable of following the directions. Just pull the little pin, aim and shoot. while the directions that I'm writing are a little more complicated and there probably needs to be some technical background to understand them. I want to make it as easy as the fire extinguisher directions.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
bitzer's rhetorical situations
I like how Bitzer showed that it is up to the speaker to decide whether or not to make a rhetorical situation out of any situation. The speaker may be compelled to do so out of exigence, but none the less, it is their decision. The speaker may be presented with a situation that is worthy of making a rhetorical situation, but they may not due the audience's stance or intelligence. like Aristotle said, there is no use wasting you words on lost causes (that quote is paraphased a lot).
Obama had an opertune time to make is Ramadan dinner a rhetorical situation. He was surrounded by ilsamic leaders and also had a pressing issue at hand with the mosque in manhatten. Obama could have gone on with the dinner, but he decided to speak about the mosque. Why not? He had an audience that would like the comments he was about to make so it was a win-win situation. Others had been waiting on him to comment so he commented on the mosque at a time where it would be most worth his comment. Obama turned a regular dinner into a rhetorical situation by seeing that he had the best opportunity to comment on an important event and to an audience that would appreciate it.
Obama had an opertune time to make is Ramadan dinner a rhetorical situation. He was surrounded by ilsamic leaders and also had a pressing issue at hand with the mosque in manhatten. Obama could have gone on with the dinner, but he decided to speak about the mosque. Why not? He had an audience that would like the comments he was about to make so it was a win-win situation. Others had been waiting on him to comment so he commented on the mosque at a time where it would be most worth his comment. Obama turned a regular dinner into a rhetorical situation by seeing that he had the best opportunity to comment on an important event and to an audience that would appreciate it.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
post #1
I don't see rhetoric as being a persuasive tool to bring people to the other side. I see rhetoric as a trait of being able to communicate your ideas in a way that catch other's attention and allows them to understand. Just because somebody speaks well does not mean that they are going to change attitudes towards the topic being defended. People are naturally stubborn and just don't change their minds or hush because somebody can communicate better than them. Good rhetoric can be used in any situation, but it doesn't mean that the speaker is right.
For example, if a well spoken individual gives a long speach filled with attention getting words and has the whole crowd eating out of his hand, he will most likely not be able to convince them that jumping off the empire state building will not kill them. While another individual that gets up and states in a hick voice with awful rhetoric will be able to convice people that they will die if they jump off of the building. So while rhetoric helps to grab others attention, I don't think it is that persuasive.
For example, if a well spoken individual gives a long speach filled with attention getting words and has the whole crowd eating out of his hand, he will most likely not be able to convince them that jumping off the empire state building will not kill them. While another individual that gets up and states in a hick voice with awful rhetoric will be able to convice people that they will die if they jump off of the building. So while rhetoric helps to grab others attention, I don't think it is that persuasive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)