Eventual Questions

A. Develop a proposal for an offering of Biol 152, "Student-organized seminar in ecology and evolution", that would attract the participation of an enthusiastic cadre of your colleagues during fall, winter, or spring term next year. The proposal should contain: (1) title; (2) one-page exposition on the intellectual motivation for the course; (3) syllabus and schedule, including reading list and example problem sets, if appropriate; (4) an overview of educational tactics, including a plan for constructive use of faculty, to achieve the course objectives; and (5) a listing of potential products of the seminar course, such as a joint paper or a proposal for a work group or research symposium. The baseline format for course structure is one two-hour meeting per week for nine weeks, but this could be adjusted as desired to match course objectives with target students.

B. The intellectual core of the above course proposal will be a cohesive reading list of substantive, high-impact papers. In this section of your response, demonstrate the value of your reading list by efficiently summarizing for each paper in your list what is the most interesting single result (i.e., the result and accompanying conclusions that student discussions of the paper should build to). To help with your explanation, provide a simple sketch (suitable for quickly putting on a whiteboard during the class discussion) that will help students capture the core result from the paper. Your sketch could be a verbal, graphical, or mathematical abstraction. Recall that for research results to be interesting, there generally has to have been more than one way that a study could have turned out. Demonstrate that each of your selected papers is interesting in this way by showing two versions of the same simple whiteboard figure, with one showing actual results and the other showing a different possible result that could have been obtained, and which would have implied different conclusions. [You can produce your sketches however you want. For example, you could sketch them on a white board, take a picture of the pair of sketches, and embed the image in your document.]

C. Briefly note the technical vocabulary, natural history background, model properties, etc., that students will need to adequately master each paper.d. Add some more sentences and paragraphs to your annotated reading list that elegantly develop the connections among papers, including the emergent themes and new questions that arise from consideration of the package of papers.e. We expect that your answers to these questions will take about 8-12 double-spaced pages. Please be sure to cite appropriate references within the text of your answer, as well as a complete list of works cited at the end. Additional figures supporting your arguments are welcome.

Consider concepts and models that have been developed to help us understand (and potentially intervene, in order to modify) the dynamics of ecological systems, involving factors and mechanisms that may act on different temporal and spatial scales. You can draw upon whatever literature from the natural sciences or social-ecological systems (SES) that is appropriate for the following questions.

A. What concepts and models do you believe will be most useful in analyzing and synthesizing the dynamics of your study systems? Why? Focus on these in B and C.

B. Are there (1) distinct approaches that need to be reconciled and synthesized, or (2) do the relevant ideas and models fit neatly together in a complementary, connected way, under one framework? If (1), do your best to reconcile/synthesize them. If (2), make it clear how they relate.

C. How might you actually *use* these ideas/models in your research? Be as specific as you can about how they will enhance the way you can define and answer research questions.Your audience is your committee. We look forward to having you demystify for us the haunting specter of cross-scale drivers in ecological dynamics. We encourage the liberal use of graphical and mathematical models.

Imagine that you have collected data on the body sizes and growth rates of some ectotherm (call it a lizard if you want) across a range of different temperature regimes. You are interested in understanding how selection operates both on the univariate trait "size" and on the physiological reaction norm (i.e., thermal performance curve (TPC)) for growth. Please describe how you would measure selection on these two elements using two different frameworks for understanding selection:Lande and Arnold's (1983) approach, based on the Genetic variance-covariance matrix and Kirkpatricik's (1990) function valued trait approach using eigenfunctions. Describe each approach using hypothetical figures and/or illustrations. Compare the relative benefits of each approach. What are the limits of the Lande and Arnold method when it comes to measuring continuous trait functions?

1. Identify and master the prominent intellectual topics that connect forest science and ecology. For example:

a. The topics of intraspecific competition and self-thinning from classical academic ecology are broadly overlapping with the theory and practice of managing forests for sustainably high growth and yield of forest products – and both areas overlap with the interests of ecosystem scientists in carbon flux and carbon life cycles.

b. The practical challenge for foresters of managing pests and pathogens in high productivity systems is linked to rich basic research on plant allocation theory, plant defenses, population dynamics, top-down vs. bottom-up controls, and diversity – stability relations, among others.

c. Choice of tree species in intensively managed forest production systems is related to invasion ecology (e.g., enemy release hypothesis and related ideas).

d. Find other such examples.

2. Write a draft manuscript targeted for Bioscience on the topic: "Ecology for foresters and forestry for ecologists". The manuscript should contain a general introduction and a general discussion / summary. The body of the manuscript should include two elements. The first element ("ecology for foresters"), should describe the theories, principles, and paradigms from the science of ecology that are of particular relevance to foresters, forest managers, and forest scientists. It should be written to be accessible, engaging, and compelling to foresters, forest managers, and forest scientists. The second element ("forestry for ecologists") should describe the theories, principles, and paradigms from forestry and forest science that are of particular relevance to ecologists. Special attention should be paid to areas where there has been intellectual synergy between the sister disciplines, and to areas where there is untapped potential for synergy. A good manuscript might be one that prompts decision makers at NSF, USDA AFRI, IUFRO, and USDA Forest Service to develop funding and programs to promote more interactions between ecologists and forest scientists.We anticipate that the text of the manuscript will be about 10-15 double-spaced pages. Cite appropriate references within the text and provide a bibliography. Figures are encouraged. You may also wish to provide "boxes" and/or suggest photographs (in the latter case, you do not need to actually provide the photographs, but could merely indicate with words what the suitable photo would show and give a draft caption.)

Semiochemicals, communication, movement, and aggregation behavior in animals; with emphasis on evolutionary and mechanistic processes, as well as implications for dispersal, dispersion, and spatiotemporal patterns in abundance. Focus for written question: Chemical communication and individual fitness in animals that attack plants.

Topic definition. Consider both terrestrial and aquatic/marine systems, but use pine bark beetlesas your focal, case-study example. Deal with communication within the animal population. Treat this topic in a way that is rigorous and specific for your case study, and at the same time informative for researchers working with different species/systems. Make the context of your case study clear, i.e., identify any unique elements, and indicate, using well-defined criteria, to what extent it is representative of fitness determinants in other natural enemies of plants. Chemical communication includes traits for response to cues for signal production, production of the signal itself, signal detection, and behavioral response; consider each of these. How can one assess whether available evidence supports the hypothesis that the mean traits in the population are optimal for individual fitness? What do you infer from the available evidence? What new data would help to address this question more rigorously? Is there evidence for individual variation, and would you expect much variation in the population? Do you have testable hypothesis (es) for how and why these traits may be sub-optimal? Is natural selection on these traits plausible at levels other than the individual? Why?*At least—include any other elements you identify as essential.

Question 2. Draft a manuscript on the above topic, to be submitted for peer review, targeted to a special issue of PNAS on Chemical Communication. Your title does not have to be identical to the "focus for written question", above, but it should be broadly similar. As in Q. 1, your manuscript should be accessible, engaging, and compelling. It should be of interest to physiological, population and chemical ecologists, evolutionary biologists, and behaviorists. All of the last paragraph from Q. 1 applies (beginning "We anticipate.."). Include the following sections: 1 page or less. Motivating context. Funnel the reader, but focus quickly. We suggest writing this last, after your paper has taken shape. 1.5 pages or less. Your case study and why and to what extent it is representative of other plant-animal interactions mediated by chemical communication among the animals (see details above). Rely on citations for detailed description of the study system. Guts of your paper. Address the questions under topic definition. If you need to focus more sharply to write an excellent paper within the page limits, do so, and justify that focus within the paper. Up to 1 page. Conclusions. Distill the most important message(s) from your case study analysis, indicating the scope of inference across systems.

Your task is to develop and justify the intellectual content for a graduate short course on: Plant-herbivore interactions, with special reference to evolutionary processes. The target audience is your peers (EEB grad students at Dartmouth or a similarly stellar program). The course structure will be six two-hour meetings.

Part 1. Introduce your course content with a compelling one-page overview (~2 pp double-spaced) that will readily capture the interest of your target audience and can be used to recruit participants.

Part 2. Follow with the body of your course prospectus presented as six modules (matching the six meetings). For each module, identify and summarize with clear engaging prose and illustrative models the curriculum elements in terms of theory, data, critical tests, and historically important study systems. For each theory or model that will be highlighted, finish with a summary of its current status as viewed by workers in the field, and offer your own assessment of its future. Do not automatically reject theories or models that are now discounted but that have been important in maturation of the field. Provide context for each theory or model that will be highlighted by recognizing the theories with which it competes, has supplanted, or has been supplanted by. For each module cite the important papers and identify with asterisks the subset of papers that would be assigned readings to accompany each module. (Use your judgment regarding the length of response that is appropriate. Graphical and mathematical abstractions are encouraged.)

Part 3. Identify 3 or more theories, models, or bodies of work that might have appeared in such a curriculum but which you've left out. Briefly justify why. (1-2 paragraphs).Choose your curriculum material to highlight the connections between plant-herbivore interactions and EEB in general. Wherever appropriate, emphasize the broader relevance for EEB of theory, models, and data that came from studies of plant-herbivore interactions. Also note the reciprocal cases wherever appropriate: i.e., when our understanding of plant-herbivore interactions has gotten a boost from borrowing theory, models, or technology from fields outside of plant-herbivore interactions. Describe these connections within part 2 and refer to them in part 1. Choose your curriculum material to highlight any notable practical applications of knowledge from studies of plant-herbivore interactions. Where appropriate, identify within part 2 of your response those theories and models that have practical value for human endeavors. If appropriate, refer to them in part 1.

Part 4. Is the field of plant-herbivore interactions a natural intellectual cluster of knowledge and understanding like, for example, _____fill-in-the-blank____? Or is this field more of a sociological construct like, for example, _____fill-in-the-blank____? (One or a few paragraphs)

Part 5. The broader goal is to have a one term course that would have three topic areas (one on "plant-herbivore interactions"), each with six two-hour meetings. Suggest and justify two other topic areas to complement "Plant-herbivore interactions". Also suggest a title for the overall course (1-2 paragraphs)

In many locations on Earth, temperatures are increasing. Thornley and Cannell (2001) examined various modeling approaches to examine soil carbon responses to temperature. Using this paper as a general framework, describe how temperature influences the major reactions of the terrestrial carbon cycle (plant photosynthesis and respiration, soil decomposition and respiration). Consider the general mathematical expressions for these reactions and summarize the general predicted effects of climatic warming on carbon flux in terrestrial ecosystems.A noted scientist attending last week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union was heard to say: "Now that we have eddy covariance technology, we can finally tell which ecosystems are sources and which are sinks." Do you agree? Explain the principle of operation for eddy covariance towers, including: what is measured directly; what are the names and units of the most informative derived metrics; how are the informative metrics derived from the raw data. Identify the leading alternative techniques for estimating ecosystem carbon flux and compare them to eddy covariance towers. Consider the special case of Arctic carbon. Is the Arctic a carbon source or sink in the context of the global C cycle based on your interpretations of the current literature? Is the Arctic source/sink relationship predicted to change in the future and in what time intervals? What are the limitations of the leading models, such as those in the IPCC reports, used to make predictions about the Arctic carbon balance for the end of the century? If you were advising the State Department on climate negotiations, how would you "position" the Arctic in discussions about the relative importance of natural systems in influencing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Can human intervention to limit C emissions be judged as successful or justified based on the projections you use?

What are the major types of models that have been developed by ecologists and/or epidemiologists to describe the spatial and/or temporal dynamics of disease? Be sure to consider models for animal and plant diseases, as well as those that affect humans; both theoretical and empirical models; and models developed for a generalized disease vs. a specific disease. What are the similarities and differences between these models? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Then consider the cholera situation specifically. To what extent are models developed for cholera similar to, or different from, models developed for other diseases? Who are the major movers and shakers in cholera modeling, and which team do you think is most likely to provide a useful predictive tool? Why?