Notes for March 8th

• The lesser prairie chicken is a particularly interesting species. Federally, it is a candidate species, meaning it is endangered, but is precluded for listing by higher-priority species. Now apparently the similar Greater Sage Grouse is being added to that list. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Department of the Interior is trying to find a way to protect these grassland species without disrupting the development of wind and other alternative energies out west (these species have demonstrated avoidance of anthropogenic features in the past, and thus the massive wind developments currently being planned have the potential to radically reduce the grouse's habitat). More here, complete with ridiculously ignorant politicos commenting.
• This climate change thing? It is going to happen much faster than anyone anticipates. Much faster. The first negative feedback loop that everyone knows about is the release of methane from frozen stores under permafrost and in the ocean. Turns out, that's already happening. There hasn't been a ton of research on this till now, so it isn't really clear that these releases are due to climate change, but if they are, then it may already be too late.
• Wonderful news: Sea Lions are not doing well at all in California.
• Ignorance is plentiful.

Notes for Friday, March 5th

• Pretty interesting graphic here on the evidence for particular supplements. Apparently I need to eat more beta-glucan. Shittake mushrooms, here I come.
• Investigating the benefits of marine reserves off-site.
• And a picture of the endangered Death Valley Pupfish, taken by my sister-in-law's husband a few weeks ago...because I haven't got anything else today.

Notes for March 4th

• Anytime someone starts up a conversation online about losing weight, someone with a year or two of physics (or who has read some science fiction) spouts off "Calories in = calories out", as if that is useful advice for people who want to lose weight. I'm not disagreeing with whether or not that is true (it is true), but it is hopelessly ignorant as well. I've tried to explain this to people who aren't biologists before and I usually get the response "You can't break the laws of thermodynamics".

Really? That's the response. Again, not very useful.

The problem is that the food you eat affects the rate at which you burn calories. Eating a meal rich in carbs causes your metabolism to differ somewhat than when you eat a meal rich in protein. These differences also affect your desire to eat. And this is why the 'calorie is a calorie is a calorie' argument doesn't hold water.

Anyway, this study made me think of all this.

• I saw this article in Frontiers, and I can honestly say I have no idea what it is talking about. This thing might take me reading it ten times to fully understand. Is it really brilliant? Or is it totally ridiculous? I can't tell you. I really feel like I'm adding a lot of value to our experience here.
• Apparently seasonal affective disorder is a big enough problem that it is being treated as a genuine medical condition. I wonder if I should sue my employer for not having a window. I certainly get depressed when I'm in here.
• Really old primate, yes, but not a human ancestor.
• The evolution of bird/dinosaur wrists.

Silver Creek (Grouse Creek Watershed)

Not much on my radar today. So instead, here are a couple of cool pictures from Silver Creek. Silver Creek is in the Grouse Creek watershed, which is entirely in Kansas but is not really a part of any of the major basin (drains into the Ark just N. of OK line, but isn't in the Walnut, Verdigris, or Neosho). Perhaps because of this, Grouse Creek is one of the most pristine and beautiful streams in Kansas. Silver Creek is a major tributary containing a lot of biodiversity. Unusually for Kansas streams, this stream is pretty nice even in the middle of winter. I would love to get out and visit it in the summer.

Notes for March 1st

• Wait...What? The Mozart Effect is a load of crap? Ah, man, that was so easy. Actually playing the instruments is just way more work.
• Nothing to do with science, but I thought this slideshow of cool places to visit had some amazing pictures.
• A very conservative Supreme Court has, over the past ten years, cut a lot of the teeth out of the Clean Water Act. Big surprise: Now more polluters are getting away with dumping hazardous materials into streams and rivers.
• Trimble and Van Aarde (2010; DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01453.x; discussed here) have quantified the extent to which scientists have focused their attention on particular species. Not surprisingly, 98% of scientific efforts have focused on just 22% of the species. What gets studied more? Large mammals and reptiles. What's left out? Small mammals, birds and amphibians. That seems intuitively off to me, since I've only met 2 people who work on large mammals and I've known something like 2,000 who've worked on birds and amphibians. Of course, this study is in southern Africa. Maybe people are just more interested in hippos and elephants than they are in...ok...not sure I actually know of any African amphibians off the top of my head.
• People sometimes question why I'm interested in elemental cycles. I don't really try to explain that, because honestly, most people who ask don't really want to know. However, now I'll start bringing up the link between nutrient enrichment and human health. "Human health" is always a convenient and easy way to say 'this is important.'

Notes for Feb 26

• Ancient crocodile fossils. The history of crocs is pretty amazing. I'm really glad they stick to rivers and lakes now.
• PLoS Medicine's decision to ban articles funded by the tobacco industry highlights a particularly difficult problem in research that often isn't acknowledged: It is very difficult to distinguish real results from faked results when all you're looking at is the resulting papers. One of the reasons PLoS banned the papers was: "the industry's long-standing attempts to distort the science of and deflect attention away from the harmful effects of smoking". Jeff Stier (of the American Council on Science and Health) seems to think PLoS is making a bad decision: "By deciding to no longer allow for research funded in any part by the tobacco industry, they're acknowledging that they're no longer able to evaluate science." I would just point out that the key is that they were never able to evaluate the science. When a person or persons is intentionally trying to manipulate the science, it is very hard to distinguish.
• I don't really understand what NASA does or is supposed to do. But, it sure doesn't seem to do science. Oh, and they had to testify in front of Congress yesterday.
• Everyone I know who knows anything about energy in the country seems to think nuclear is the big solution. I remain unconvinced for a variety of reasons. This isn't helping me feel better though.
• The convoluted and confusing debate about salt and health. Personally, I'm extremely skeptical we're eating too much salt as a culture.
• The story of how the all-female whiptail lizard retains such impressive genetic diversity has apparently been solved. Not so apparent: How. This article in the NYTimes just raises more questions than answers, but the actual article is interesting. The 'diversity' being referred to by the NYTimes is really heterozygosity...and it's maintained by a double meiosis. So there isn't really diversity in the population (they all have the same genotype). The author talks about this restricting their evolutionary ability (i.e., if their genotype is fixed, how are they going to evolve), but I wonder how much epigenetic variation might be able to allow them to evolve.

Notes for Feb 23rd

• Killing owls....to save owls. I think we're getting ridiculous.
• Using competition to thwart invasive species. You don't see this kind of stuff all that often, despite a widespread assumption that invasions are less likely to occur when competition is greater.
• Using evolutionary biology to better do conservation. Haven't really digested this yet, but I will.