CALEB ALBERT 1) How land-use change affects species composition and ecological interactions over large temporal and spatial scales? 2) What is the true value of biodiversity to humanity? 3) Is the earth and it's resources capable of handling a world in which each country is developed. Developed nations such as the US seem to encourage and facilitate developing countries to grow. But if every individual on the planet lived like we do in the US, the earth would be drained of its resources quickly. So I guess my question boils down to, is there a better way to mediate equity issues around the world? If I were to pick 3 question I would pick my own question, but they were not ecological questions, just more about saving the world. 3 questions written by fellow classmates are very excellent questions that deal with ecological issues. (Alex 1) The first question is how will our impact on the land and its changes change the ecological interactions over large scales? (Todd 2) The second question is How important is biodiversity to the human life?.(Brendan Meany 3)The 3rd question is as we strive to improve the life of humans, and create developed nations, can the natural world provide us with all of our luxuries. These question I believe are very important questions but are very lofty in there goals. The first question deals with projections on what we will do to the land, and being able to see how it will effect the species far into the future. This is tough because there will be many more factors that will impact the land, and to guess every impact would be tough. The question of what is the true value of biodiversity to humanity is a great question but it should be rhetorical. The economy and scientists will try and put number values on this question which I believe only puts us farther from the question at hand. The third question and probably the most important question is a great one. The answer though is not how much can we consume, but what makes us consume so much. If the answer is no this world could not survive if we developed the rest of the world into rich land owners, then what. It is obvious that our consumption rate it out of control, but we don't stop to see that the developed countries are the problem. DANIELLE AYCOCK 1. The first ecological question written by Amanda Huels ( #2). Was one of the top three ecological questions about how the increase in the concentration of toxic substance is affecting humans. I feel this is a great question because this is a very sever problem that the global population is facing. The main point in this question is about how these chemicals are being released into our environment and we are ingesting them and as a result shown by research we are seeing an increase in cancer and diseases. This is a great question that we all should be very concerned with. Research has proven that certain chemicals that are in the foods we eat and drink are cancer causing. There has also been an increase in cancer in younger adults over the last few decades. It is very important for us to understand and be educated about the effect these harmful chemicals will have on us. This question was well stated and was to the point. A little bit of research/statistics or examples of harmful chemicals we eat and breathe on a daily basis and the effects the have on humans could have been useful. 2. The second ecological question written by Sergio Minchey (#2). Was about how the world is experiencing global climate change. The change in temperature and other factors will also have a direct impact on the distribution or spread of infectious diseases. This question is one of the top ecological questions and a problem that we will probably experience at some point in our life time. I like this question because of the fact that this is not just a local problem it is a global problem and is something that we should be concerned about affecting us when we get older or our next generation of family members. He did a very good job of providing facts and previous data. I have no suggestions on how to improve this question. It was very easy to understand and gave data to show that this is a real problem that we already trying to answer.a 3. The third ecological question written by Cody Jordan (#3). This is about how there is a lack of education about knowledge that has been gained in research and there is a lack in how to interpret the research. This is a very important question because like how he stated education in scientific literacy is important because it is used in policy-making. If some of these results are misinterpreted or are not interpreted at all then we will not receive the benefits of these scientific results. I felt that he did a very good job at coming up with this question and with describing why it was important. This is an ecological question that effects us daily and it is very important for us to educate others about how important scientific literature is and how to interpreter it. BRETT BERRY 1) Cody Jordan #1: Cody brings up that we are yet to have discovered most of the species on earth at this point and that we are currently destroying these areas and will be unable to reveal these potentially beneficial species. I believe this is an extremely pertinent issue, since we do not know the implications of what these species are capable of. There could be many beneficial species in fields of medicine and technology among others. How much we can gain from them is unknown and protecting and exploring these areas should be placed with utmost importance. While this question only briefly mentions that these areas should be protected, implication on conservation on these areas is present. Without exploring these areas, we will never know how potentially beneficial they are, and if we do not take action soon to do so or at least protect them, they will be eliminated in the very near future. 2) Sergio Minchey #3: Sergio mentions that it is essential to locate areas which are biodiversity hotspots, seeing as they are the most important locations to preserve. This preservation must come about in an extremely short time-frame, since these areas are being destroyed at a very high rate. If we were to better understand which areas should be focused upon, we can allocate the required resources to particular regions or areas which are deemed the most pertinent, thus more effectively using the resources at hand, as opposed to a much more broad approach to conservation ~V trying to tackle the problem as a whole. These areas have the most potential to contain valuable and undiscovered species, which could benefit us as a society on many levels, as I addressed in the previous questions. Narrowing down the scope of our conservation approach is an excellent idea, and this begins with identifying which areas are deemed as hotspots for biodiversity. 3) Stenka Vulova #1 The task of fully understanding the impacts of widespread GMOs in our society is one of extreme importance, since they are of extreme abundance in our world today. We do not understand what the future implications of these modified organisms will hold for us, thus it is necessary to take this task on. There could be very drastic side effects if we choose to disregard this issue, such as Stenka mentions loss of genetic diversity through modification, as well as the disruption of biological communities. Since GMOs are so widespread in all cultures across the globe, we must now take a step back and try to fully grasp what the future will hold for us if we continue in this fashion, something which is highly unlikely to change. Continuing such extensive use of these in our ecological communities and agricultural practices could lead to unforeseen problems. This issue certainly should have been further investigated before such systems were pertinent in all regions of the world. However, it is our responsibility to re-evaluate such practices and make projections about what the future will hold. MATT FORETICH Stenka Vulova (1) Stenka's question addresses an issue that is framed by a very serious overtone and the potential for unprecedented negative consequences. The threats which scientists have proposed that GMOs may pose to humanity (and, and of course, the systems in which the transgenic genes are present) are generally considered to warrant a considerable amount of future research. She summarizes several of these threats and points out areas where they research might be focused. My only criticism is that she does not provide any workable hypothesis forresearch that one might undertake. For example, how does the percentage of transgenes in a certain crop change over time after initial exposure from a GMO? Do they eventually disappear from the natural crop population or do they increase? Todd Pierson (2) Todd's question addresses an issue that is tremendously important, as the term biodiversity (and all of the associations and assumptions that it includes) is used to frame almost every environmental issue. As ecologists, we should be very wary about rushing to judgments about the role biodiversity (richness, abundance, genetic, etc.) plays, either generally or in a specific system. Instead, we should investigate the role and function of diversity in many different contexts. My criticisms of Todd's question are that it is not detailed enough. I know what I "think" he means and what his question makes me think, but that is about it. He also does not provide a working hypothesis. For example, do marine reserves with higher species richness typically also have higher species abundances? Do effects vary in near-reserve yields? Sergio Minchey (1) Sergio's question, similar to Stenka's, seems very important because of the possible consequences of not paying respect to the research that is required. Paleoecology and research experimental ecology are in agreement that future climate change will cause a change in the global distribution and of terrestrial biomes, and, as a result, drastically alter the agricultural capacities of most geographic areas. Research that aims to to uncover where these biomes will exist in the future are important in preparing both governments agriculturists to adapt. Once again, however, Sergio does not provide any working hypothesis. For example, where will climate change increase precipitation to the point that a rice paddy is now possible? Where will it decrease precipitation past the threshold requirement for a productive rice paddy. KATE HELMICK 1. Olakekan Kamau-Nataki- To what extent can environments and ecosystems be altered before the results are irreversible? This question asks how much can an ecosystem be damaged before it no longer works as a productive ecosystem anymore. It thought this was one of the more ecologically based questions because it is something an ecologist can actually do research on and answer. Finding out how we are damaging our ecosystems is extremely important discover, because at a certain point if we damage them too much they will simply be unusable and damaged beyond repair. Climate change, pollution, etc are all having impacts on our environment but it might reach a point where it will be too much for the environment to handle. 2. Stenka Vulova- How will climate change affect disease dynamics in human populations? The questions asks how global climate change directly affects humans, specifically human health. I feel that people often do not take global change as seriously because they think the only things it is affecting are the melting glaciers and polar bears. If people were to learn more about how climate change actually effects human populations directly, they might care more about slowing increasing climate change. For example, warming is allowing vector-borne illnesses such as malaria and dengue fever to spread to higher latitudes though theses diseases were originally only prevalent in the tropics. If society realizes climate change affects human as well as environmental health because the two are inextricably connected, we might have more incentives to protect our environment and decrease our carbon emissions. 3. Matt Foretich- How can we inspire and educate our youth that the complex and interconnected earth system is more beautiful than the newest Coach bag or Nick kicks? Basically this question asks how we can make the upcoming generations care more about preserving and learning about the environment. It does seem like if people cared more about conserving gas, turning off lights, unplugging electronics, etc that our world would be a healthier and less wasteful place but there is just a general feeling of apathy and indifference instilled in our culture when it comes to the environment. People have enough to worry about in their own lives and environmental issues are simply not a priority for the majority of people. Is there a way we could inspire the next generation to make environmental issues more of a priority, is there a way to make them actually care and want to make changes in their own everyday lives that helps the environment around us. A lot of people are not aware of issues threatening our environment so finding ways to educate might lessen the general apathetic much of our society has toward our environment. CODY JORDAN Question 1 by Sergio Minchey How will changing climactic conditions affect agriculture, in terms of productivity and distribution? This is an important question because, as Sergio mentioned, a huge proportion of the worlds' population already has less than adequate food supplies. Perhaps climate change will alter rainfall patterns or humidity levels and make once-fertile regions (like the midwest US) become barren and unfit for significant amounts of production. Places where agriculture is already difficult may be hit especially hard. Obviously, without adequate food supplies, any other problems will be next to impossible to solve. Question 3 by Stenka Vulova How will the dynamics of species invasions change in the future? Many, many species are introduced to new habitats, but only a relative minority of those go on to establish persistent populations in their new area to become "invasive". Some of these successful invasives' new habitats may not even be identical to their previous one. They may affect new plants or animals that are unrelated to the ones they affected in their native range. They may affect these new ecosystems' biogeochemical cycles in ways that they did not affect their native ecosystems. These issues illustrate the importance of studying invasive species and their impacts, but they also illustrate its complexity. As Stenka mentioned, we must study these issues regardless of their complexity. Question 1 by Matt Foretich How can ecologists more clearly communicate with decision-makers? This is a question that touches on virtually every other issue in ecology. After all, all this research being done is of little value if it is not put to use. Not only is demonstrating to the public and decision-makers what we learn through the science of ecology important, it is also vital to try to provide some means through which to use the results of ecological studies. Matt also mentions in his second question that some studies will naturally take a long time, but management or conservation action still needs to be taken in the present. I think this has a clear tie-in with the first question--we need to also elucidate the importance of complex, robust ecological modeling to make informed decisions about those issues for which we may have less than optimal "hard data". WILLIAM LEWIS Jack Glenn: How much of the earth's resources can we exploit before it catches back up to us, causing a massive population crash? -This question is a true ecological question because the question is deals how one species, humans, are increasing the pressure on the earth, and if we can possibly not cause detrimental effects on our own species. Todd Pierson: How does disease interact with climate change, habitat fragmentation, and the rest of the axis of evil to threaten global biodiversity? -Global biodiversity is crucial to the health of the planet because without biodiversity, species viability would decrease as the breath of species decreased also. Disease, climate change, and habitat fragmentation are all factors in biodiversity, so questioning their impact is a valid question. Alex Wright: How land-use change affects species composition and ecological interactions over large temporal and spatial scales? -Land-use affects how much a certain species has as their range and breeding area which would affect ecological interactions within ecosystems and populations of those affect by the change in land-use. BRENDAN MEANY Jack Glenn 1 As the human population continues to grow, our methods of resource exploitation and the sheer size of our population will surely force more and more species into extinction due to competitive exclusion. Will there ever be a tipping point where we push so many species into extinction that we can no longer sustain our lifestyles? I chose this question as my top three because it relates to an actual ecological issue (competitive exclusion) and also relates to the state of current affairs concerning global population growth. It is a good one because it deals with the balance between the idea of competitive exclusion and how humans are beginning to push the limits of the number of species that we have, can, and will exclude. I~Rm not sure that there will be one specific point wherein there are massive population crashes in the human species. I feel the complex connectivity of ecosystems on the earth will protect us from abrupt extinction by means of ecological elasticity. But that could just raise other questions of how well we are intermingled in the connectivity of ecosystems, how well are these connections able to withstand human impact, etc. Amanda Huels 1 How can we better understand the fluxes of nutrients and energy within ecosystems, and how will these complex systems of fluxes be affected as the earth continues to change? This question is also well connected to a central ecological issue, the flow of nutrients and such within ecosystems. It is an important question to pose as existence itself is manifested so strongly in the flow of life giving nutrients and compounds through systems. ?It will become increasingly more important that we understand how these fluxes work, as Amanda has said, and if and how they will change under the patterns of climate change. The fluxes are a support system for ecosystems. Without them, nothing can survive. Caleb Albert 3 How can we better immerse the general public into nature? This doesn~Rt involve simply informing them of the ecological issues which are currently taking place. It involves getting them to love nature and thus the willingness to fight for it. This question might seemingly not relate to ecology and the issues therein, but I feel that if people were to spend more time in nature, experience its beauty, be taken aback by its complexities, feel little in comparison to everything that goes on in an ecosystem, then people would be more keen to understanding ecological processes. For example, take a young child into a forest and show him the massive amounts of organisms thriving there. He might inquire as to how each of these things coexist, why the trees are so tall, why some animals are present and others absent, why are there so little amount of trees compared to how many acorns there are each year. In this way, we can get the public interested in actual ecological processes and terms. SERGIO MINCHEY Malavika Rajeev question 3 What influence will modern phylogenetics have on taxonomy and, by extension, the way in which ecologists classify the organisms they study? I too think it's interesting to witness how the largely pre-Darwinian methods of classification, like comparative morphology, might be complemented - or even replaced in some instances - by modern DNA sequencing that allows biologists to classify according to evolutionary relationships. The process of classifying organisms this way has already begun to influence taxonomy, but it will continue as DNA sequencing becomes cheaper and quicker. This method of classification certainly has utility for a macroecologist who studies ecological trends at very long time scales. It also is useful for conservation biologists who ask the question: how do we maximize the preservation of evolutionary novelty? Other ecologists, though, who focus more on short-term trends in populations, communities, and ecosystems, might contend that methods such as the biological species concept or the ecological species concept will retain more utility for their field of study. Stenka Vulova question 2 What effect will climate change have on infectious diseases in human populations? This question of course deals with public health and climatology, but it's a serious ecological question as well since it deals with humans as a part of the ecosystem rather than as a separate agent. In addition to having obvious social implication, the effects brought about by climate change provides ecologists with a sort of natural experiment with which they can test and modify their models of population dynamics, host-parasite interactions, etc. Amanda Huels question 1 What are the effects of changing nutrient compositions in ecosystems? Like the previous question, I think human impact on ecosystems - apart from being a cause for concern among conservation biologists - provides theoreticians with a means to test their models. This topic is of interest to ecosystems ecologists who wish to understand things like how increasing nitrogen levels will impact a river ecosystem, for example. TODD PIERSON 1) How do we increase scientific literacy? Caleb Albert (3), Danielle Aycock (3), Brett Berry (1), Matt Foretich (1, 3), Cody Jordan (3), Brendan Meany (3), James Schobak (1) As indicated by the number of times mentioned in student responses, many ecologists fear the scientific illiteracy of the American (and to be fair, global) public. What is the use of showing (objectively and scientifically) the effects of climate change or population decline of the hellbender if the voters don't understand or care? Engagement of the public is equally important as pure science, and real change can't occur if understanding is limited to academia. Several students mentioned (to paraphrase) instilling a sense of E.O. Wilson's "biophilia" in children, and others mentioned communicating the results of scientific studies to the public. If conservation is to work, both are necessary. 2) Human (over?)population: optimistically, how do we stop it, and realistically, how do we adapt? Bretty Berry (1), Jack Glenn (1), Kate Helmick (1), Sergio Minchey (1), James Schobak (3) Another hot topic in student responses was human population. Again, while this isn't a "purely scientific" topic of ecology, it is just as important as anything else. Some conservationists (e.g. the Center for Biological Diversity) campaign for a lower population, while others plan how to adapt to a world with 7, 8, 9... billion humans. Either way, we've reached a critical mass as a species, and we are shaping the Earth's history. Planning for an Earth with an even larger population is necessary to understand diseases, agriculture, and landscapes of the future. 3) What happened to Plethodon ainsworthi? Todd Pierson (3) This species of salamander was originally collected (two specimens) in 1964 at one location in Mississippi. It has never been seen since. While I originally posted this question somewhat in jest, it represents the broader topic of extinction. I could have just as easily asked "what happened to Ambystoma cingulatum?", or "what happened to Bolitoglossa jacksoni", ad infinitum--and those are just the salamanders. The disappearance of biodiversity from some (or all) of its range is worrisome to biologists, but overlooked by the general public. For those biophiliacs among us, it's a tragedy. And for many of these species, extinction occurs before we know virtually anything about their natural history or distribution. At the risk of sounding dramatic, now is the time to fix that--to study the ins and outs of the lives of these creatures before they disappear, while at the same time attempting to prevent this disappearance. MALAVIKA RAJEEV Danielle Aycock #3, Brett Berry #1, Matt Foretich #1, Cody Jordan #3 The question of how to communicate ecological research and value to the public is pressing in today's global state when the issues we face as ecologists are often greatly impacted by the support of the masses, even in the simple terms of acquiring funding for ecological research.There is a power in the public that the scientific community does not have. It is one of numbers, in that the populous act as a support system and a task force. The power of the masses is evident in the citizen science projects that have developed over the recent decades. For instance, the Cornell Ornithology lab has amassed a massive amount of data about the birds of North America basically through observations logged through backyard birders. At the Odum School of Ecology, the Altizer lab conducts a citizen science project, Monarch Health, which has helped monitor migratory and non-migratory monarch populations for infection by a debilitating protozoan parasite. Like Discover Life, these projects encourages the average layman to explore, discover, and truly participate in ecological research and further their and our understanding of the ecological world. One criticism that I have, is the over simplification of issues and research when presented to the public, especially by the media. There is often a true "dumbing down" of scientific findings, and I think that a misinformed public is just as bad, if not worse, than an ignorant one. Amy Wright #1 What is the future role of ecological theory in applied sciences? The burden of saving the world through conservation and sustainability has been thrust upon ecologists, whether it is conserving species, water, natural resources to people themselves. The research we conduct often has important implications in multiple realms including, public policy.? A faculty member of ecology once said during a discussion, that ecology was a stunted science, because it is facing the task of solving problems, when the foundations to the answers have not been built yet.?But unfortunately, the theory behind ecology is still in the foundling stage. While the fields of mathematics, physics, biology have all been developing for hundreds of years, morphing and changing based on new knowledge and always on the verge of discovery, ecology has only emerged as a science in the past century. The role of ecologists as saviors needs to be re-examined, and the theory behind ecological studies be strengthened. It is important to understand the dynamics of the world before we can (if we can) fix its problems, just as it is important to know what kind of species exist in this world, as we try to conserve them. Taylor Piefke # 1 What should be done about an overpopulated world that surpassed its natural carrying capacity? Human overpopulation appeared as a theme in many people~Rs questions. But, I think that Taylor put in the right context of "what should be done." The answer to this question, I think lies in education and empowerment, especially of women. In developing countries, access to education and a career gets women away from the traditional structure of marriage and motherhood. Increasing access to and acceptance of contraceptives, in all practical terms, is the best method for population control, as human beings are inevitably going to have sex, no matter what level of education or empowerment they are at. My criticism of this issue is with the way it is treated by the ecological community. Ecologists are very aware of this issue, but often are callous about what it really means to control the human population. It is an issue of privilege to contemplate over the solution to the existence of others. I think that it is incredibly important to recognize that not only does humanity as a growing population consume an unsustainable amount of resources, but that a disproportionately small group of humanity consumes at a disproportionately large rate. We are that disproportion, and I think we need to catch ourselves before we say, ~SMan, everything would be golden if the world population was lower - because we could equivalently say that the problem would be solved, if we as the 1 person: 1 laptop: 1 car folks didn't exist either.? JAMES SCHOBAK 1) Taylor Piefke 1.) What should be done about an overpopulated world that surpassed its natural carrying capacity? There's no question that we face a titanic problem of overpopulation that causes serious ecological as well as sociological problems. In order to artificially increase our carrying capacity many other species have been forced into extinction or serious decline. If our population continues to fewer and fewer resources will be left for other species. 2)Daniells Aycock 3.) How do we educate the general public about science and its importance? If people are to make informed decisions regarding scientific matters then they must sufficiently understand the concepts and processes behind them. Much of the general public regards scientific endeavors as unimportant and as such, reasearch an funding have been significantly reduced in recent years. 3)Brett Berry 2. How can we better allocate our resources globally? As we talked about in the last class we have many serious problems facing the world today and a limited amount of resources with which to address them. To this end, we must focus our resources on the major problems in order to efficiently solve them. STENKA VULOVA Sergio Minchey, Question 1: Restatement of the question in my own words: Basically, how will agricultural systems be affected by the progression of climate change? How will the distribution of arable land change globally, and which regions, specifically, will be affected adversely or positively? How will the net production of the world change? Critique: This is an ecological (and societal) question that cuts to the core of what we should really be thinking about. Analyzing the well-being of future generations in financial and economic terms is unsound if we ignore food production, food distribution, and the resource (and knowledge base) that will be required to shift to more viable crops in light of changing climatic patterns. Bjorn Lomborg, while spot-on concerning the necessity to at least consciously think about prioritization, largely ignored the connection between the prosperity of future generations and climate change. While this may not be a profound sound-bite: we need food. Specifically, this question is vast in scope and will require a solid quantitative basis (better models, more models, individualized models for every region of the Earth) and field data to base the models off of (studies on how variables as precipitation and temperature alterations change productivity - once again, on a local scale). And what are good solutions? This part is less ecological, more moral and policy-based. Would planting genetically modified (GMO) crops resilient to hotter and/or dryer conditions to boost food supply be acceptable to ecologists? What will it take to shift national economies from the "old crops" to climate change-ready crops? Even with our best efforts, will people in some areas of the world simply lose or significantly decrease the ability to support themselves? Todd Pierson, Question 1: Restatement of the question in my own words: How is disease related to habitat fragmentation, climate change, and other environmental variables? How can we utilize ecological knowledge and models to predict disease outbreak in both animal and human populations? Critique: Though I also wrote about the influence of climate change of disease vectors (and subsequently the spread of disease), I had not considered that (or what) impact habitat fragmentation and other environmental factors had on proliferation of disease in animal and human populations. When I looked up the topic on a very basic level, one of the related ideas is that landscape connectedness (corridors) allow for a greater persistence of an endangered host. I particularly like this question because making people care about environmental issues can be approached in a more convincing way if the connectedness between issues (such as conservation and public health, which seem at first thought to have little to no relation) is quantitatively substantiated. Just as the existence of watersheds was solidly defended due to their ability to purify water supplies in a cost-effective way, the existence of habitat and natural corridors can be defended if they enhance public health. Granted, ecologists and environmentalists care about biodiversity and habitat conservation for their own sakes, but ecologists are not everyone. Alex Wright, Question 1: Restatement of the question in my own words: How does human modification of the environment (urbanized, agricultural, etc.) affect species composition, species richness, and other ecological variables? How does land use affect ecological interactions over larger time spans and regions? Critique: When visiting Yosemite National Park in California this summer, I noticed that a lot of the animals living in proximity to the areas where tourists congregated (various species of birds, deer, chipmunks, and of course, squirrels) acted very much like domesticated animals. Crows followed you around expectantly, begging for granola bar crumbs. One hungry squirrel even let us touch its nose when we were feeding it. My experience of animals in this grand, supposedly pristine national park made me think about how the presence of humans alter which species succeed (and how "wild" animals act). We generally only view the alteration of land by human beings as having negative consequences, decreasing species richness. Often, species richness is decreased, but species who adapt to human society can succeed spectacularly. Thus, I think that Alex's question is fascinating and applicable for very different scenarios. Extremely human- modified environments are especially interesting to study in terms of species composition and other ecological variables -for instance, completely urbanized centers and agricultural land. Ecology is not a "science of the jungle." Where there is life, that's where ecology should be. AMY WRIGHT 1) Matt Forelich: Question 2 Restated: Considering the relatively slow pace of ecological research, how will ecologists be able to keep up with the fast pace of technological and economic advancements? Ecology, roughly defined as being the scientific study of natural processes through space and time, is largely the based on research that is done over a long-time frame. A lot of ecological research is short-changed in such a way that the amount of information we can obtain from such research is not as accurate as it could be because any observable changes that occur on a larger time-scale may not be observed within the time range of most scientific grants. Combine this problem (which unfortunately was not directly stated in Matt's question) with the fast pace of technological and economic advancements, and ecological research will not be able to sufficiently influence policy and practices, which will potentially influence the way in which ecological research is accepted by the scientific and public community. Because of its broad scope, this question can lead to many solutions or suggestions on the part of ecologists and law-makers alike. Of course, this in and of itself may actually be a detriment to the question's solution, as the bridge between ecology, other scientific fields, and policy-making will need to be addressed and defined. 2) Cody Jordan: Question 3 Restated: How will scientific illiteracy in today's world affect the advancement of research, policy-making, and planning? The way in which the public and political figures regard scientific research has always been and continues to be an issue that blurs and distorts scientific inquiry and research. Ecological research, as a result, is not understood in the way that it needs to be understood to implement appropriate policy and planning regarding national and international resources. I think that this question should actually be expanded to address another question that had been posed by Matt Forelich. Matt's first question regarding ecologists' abilities to "quantify and translate the findings of their research such that it can be more easily interpreted by the average person and policymakers" directly relates to the problem of scientific illiteracy posed by Cody, although Cody did not explicitly state or connect with this issue. Complete scientific literacy by the public and by policy-makers is obviously an ideal situation, but is perhaps an unreasonable expectation of these groups. I think that the combination of increased scientific literacy and an increased ability on the part of ecologists to present their findings in an effective manner is really a better expectation. Therefore, I think that the question should actually read: How does the combination of the ineffective presentation of ecological research and scientific illiteracy in today's world affect the advancement of research, policy-making, and planning? 3) Alex Wright: Question 1 Restated: How will the change in how we use our land affect biodiversity and ecological interactions throughout space and time? Alex's question, although stated with a slight bias towards environmentalism, is a very valid question in the future of the field of ecological research. Land-use change, the key issue in environmentalism, is a difficult issue to address in ecology, even though it is very much an ecological reality. Land-use change will more than likely have an impact on the biodiversity and ecological interactions in a negative manner, and ecologists need to look at this problem through space and time scales. Currently, ecological research is done on short time scales with relatively limited land or species focuses. Research grants need to take the importance of ecological research and the impacts of land-use change into consideration so that the field of ecology can move forward into the future. Alex's question is a very important one to ask, but the role of ecological study needs to be further defined within the dimensions of the questions in order to stress its connection to today's researchers.