Posts

Posted on

Mapping Species Distributions previewed

Dag Endresen introduces Mapping Species Distributions by Janet Franklin, just published by Cambridge University Press.

Species Distribution Modeling (SDM) has really found its way into the scientific literature of late. It has moved from its origin in ecology, to a wider use in life sciences, including also recently data analysis in agriculture. Andy Jarvis, for one, has recently done some excellent studies of crop diversity with MaxEnt. I have not yet read this book, but have ordered it from my favorite online bookshop. Here’s why.

The book introduces the theory and the fundamentals of SDM and proceeds with a deeper description of the many different data analysis methods that has been applied. The list of methods is long (and still growing). However, it seems this book gives comprehensive guidelines for selecting the appropriate method for your own SDM study. I believe that Janet Franklin, the author, teaches species distribution modeling with the free open source R statistical analysis software. We can perhaps hope to find also some few examples of how to apply the described methods with the R package.

The books seems, however, much more focused on the understanding of the ecological principles for SDM and species-environment relationships. The large section on the SDM methods aims to provide us with an understanding of the assumptions and limitations for the models and predictions. I hope this will help to relieve the kind of “black-box” mystery I sometimes feel for many of the SDM methods. We shall see.

Janet Franklin has long experience of biogeography, with appointments as professor of both Geography and Biology.

Posted on

Genetic Engineering discussion continues

Ewan R takes up the cudgels on genetic engineering:

If the western world would invest 1/100th of the amount it blows on new methods of killing people into transgenics developed by the public sector for specific small scale problems the world would likely be a far better place (and the requirement for the other 99/100ths of that arms budget would also probably fall off dramatically)

Not sure why he singles out the western world, but let that slide. To which James responds:

As I see it corporate research is a separate pot of money. If it doesn’t get spent on genetic engineering it’ll get spent on marker assisted breeding for similar traits in similar crops. If for some reason it couldn’t be spent on crop improvement at all, it’d probably be spent on… I don’t know… advertising. … [M]oney spent in commercial research isn’t at the expense of humanitarian projects so it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) begrudged. (And when/if nitrogen use efficiency and drought resistant traits make it to market they’ll be worth every penny of that price tag.)

Which neatly encapsulates several of the ideas swirling around. Ewan is probably right that 1% of the “death” budget would improve life for billions of people. And James is right that the many pots of money simply aren’t fungible. What strikes me is that these kinds of points are discussed at our level, but the high-ups just don’t seem interested. In my naiveté I’d have thought that world leaders, business titans and gung-ho philanthropists would be more interested in finding out whether different approaches to their concerns might in fact be worthwhile. I guess they have more important things to think about.

Posted on

Featured: Genetic Engineers

James raises a thought on the discussion of genetic engineers he precipitated:

I think there are many traits that could be generated by the non-profit sector and freely introgressed into lots of different cultivars and landraces which would materially improve the lives of people around the world. It’s much harder (if not impossible) to think of genetically engineered traits that would generate more good than $150 million dollars spent on other projects.

Costs, meet benefits.

Posted on

Law of unintended consequences: Piracy edition

Pirates off the coast of Somalia have apparently claimed that they are “coastguards” and that their ransom demands are more in the nature of “fines” on foreign fishing fleets come to steal Somalia’s marine resources. So far, so much fish soup. But according to a study reported by the Associated Press, fishing folk in Somalia have seen increased catches:

“I remember some days I used to go to the sea early to catch fish and would return with no fish, but nowadays there are plenty. You can catch it everywhere,” said fisherman Bakar Osman, 50. “I do not know the reason but I think the foreign fishing vessels, which used to loot our fish, were scared away by pirates.”

Not only that, but the effects are being felt way down the coast in Kenya, where sport fishing is enjoying a boom.

Angus Paul, whose family owns the Kingfisher sports fishing company, said that over the past season clients on his catch-and-release sports fishing outings averaged 12 or 13 sail fish a day. That compares with two or three in previous years.
Somali pirates, Paul said, are a group of terrorists, “but as long as they can keep the big commercial boats out, not fishing the waters, then it benefits a lot of other smaller people.”

Not that that justifies piracy, no sirree. But it does suggest that some countries should borrow a gunboat or two and kick the pescopirates out of their waters. h/t Resilience Science.