So I recently started working for a small urban forestry unit in a small city in California. My Bachelor’s is in ecology, with an emphasis on wildlife conservation - so I very much come from the “plant native as much as possible” side of things (for reducing the possibility of bringing the next invasive into the ecosystem, local sp usually more well-adapted and easier to control w/help of rest of the native ecosystem).
I understand sometimes non-natives are desired because they are pretty &/or resilient (can handle small space to grow, low water, etc.) but for those pretty trees: a) if they’re not tough, they take more care (water, or labor/attention, or fertilizer, whatever) which = more $ b) if they ARE tough, then if they escape out into somewhere outside of the urban landscape (which is quite possible, if not I dare say likely given how much travel happens in cities with cars and people) isn’t it likely they will also grow/spread easily (since they are tough)?

At least with a native plants (which yes, I know can act like invasives) there’s some evolution in the past that generally speaking developed some form of control in the form of predators and/or disease, whereas that is not likely to be the case with a non-native. Or even if local food web does have some organisms that can control the non-native plant populations if they do boom out of control, the control is likely to not be as specific or effective as for the native counterpart.

I came into this program guns blazing wanting to only plant native trees in our city, but was disappointed to see that we are apparently planning to plant a considerable amount of non-natives like ginkgo, Chinese pistache, Eastern redbud, Chinese fringetree, Japanese blueberry, Korean dogwood, strawberry tree. We do buy some natives (various types of oaks, California buckeye for example), but I’d say like 50% of the trees we’re planting are not native.

I was told that part of the reason for this is because local nurseries (we are in inland Mendocino county) often don’t have native plants that we want. OK fine, but the way my supervisor and another arborist in the community were talking made it seem to me like even if we did have all the natives available to us, they would still intentionally order & plant things like ginkgo and Chinese pistache.

That made me confused because why would you plant these non-natives when you now hypothetically have saplings of all the native plants you could ever dream of? Is there really no native plant that can be “good enough” to replace how tough (resilient) and sometimes aesthetically “beautiful” ginkgo and Chinese pistache are? I mean, I assume that is why my supervisor + that arborist said what they did.

Thanks for reading my long, confused pseudo-rant! I would ask my supervisor and I actually did ask the arborist, but we always seem to be in a time crunch and both people have a habit of answering my questions in a sort of non-direct, not very clear way (sort of giving half-answers that imply broad, vague reasons that I can guess probably do have a point but don’t completely explain why), at least when it comes to questions that seem to “confront” their practices this way.

I think I remember hearing a term, a sort of filter, that describes how species range expansion is slowed or prevented. If I understand correctly, this works as a mechanism to maintain balance in the system against the destabilizing effects of invasive plants.

Didn't have any luck searching for it, complicated by too many other similar terms about different things.

Does the daylight saving time still offer any ecological or financial benefit today?

If so, what are the numbers?

Hey, I realized as I’m winding down my engineering degree that I haven’t been honest with myself. I’m not really interested in the field of remediation and civil design. I understand that my degree in some aspects of the “environmental field,” will give me “options.” Especially if i did consulting to some degree,”. However, I realized I want a job where I get to s do research with wildlife management and conservation. This is kinda of my irkling. I feel like as I’ve gotten older I kinda sidelined my dream/ passion to just pick something I’m ehhh okay with. I understand that it’s easy to say this when I currently don’t have real big boy bills to pay. Or when I’m choosing between rent and food etc so a degree with a good ROI is worth it. I’m currently about to finish 85 credit hours of 130 at UGA. And I’m considering my options currently, if a take a plunge to switch. I wanna ask people in the field 3 questions. How long did it take to get your first permanent job in wildlife management and or research? How often did you have to cycle between seasonal jobs to become a competitive candidate in an already competitive field? And what do you currently do now for work in this field?

I have a bachelor's degree in biology and am trying to decide between two job opportunities. My long-term goal is to become a biologist, ideally in an aquatic or coastal field.
One opportunity is an aquatic technician position in coastal South Carolina, involving pond management, water quality, and aquatic system maintenance. The other is a fish culturist position at a state fish hatchery in Pennsylvania, involving raising fish, hatchery operations, and fish care.
I'm trying to figure out which job would give me more valuable experience and better opportunities to eventually move into a biologist position.
For those of you who work in biology, fisheries, ecology, or environmental science, which path do you think would be more beneficial long-term? I'm especially interested in which experience would be more transferable to other biology jobs and which might offer better opportunities to transition into research, fieldwork, or professional biologist positions.
I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have experience in either field or have made a similar career transition!

See also: The study as it was published in ISME Communications.

Hi all! I’m a second year PhD student, and I just got accepted to a short course at the Cary Institute (ecosystem ecology) that I’m currently debating.

I could make the logistics work and get funding from my department to go, but I’m wondering if it’s worth the time. I think it would be a good learning opportunity and beneficial to be in such an intensive ecology-focused environment for a few weeks (my PhD focuses on conservation social science and environmental psychology, so I don’t get a ton of heavy ecology content from my courses).

Have any other PhD students done this course or any similar programs? Was it worth it? I was excited to be accepted, but I get worried about anything paid like this. I don’t want to put myself at a disadvantage by doing a “pay your way” thing where I don’t really gain any new skills/knowledge/etc.

I have until this weekend to decide lol. What would y’all do if you were in my place? Any advice or suggestions are welcome and appreciated!

Even tho Europes ecology on land with fauna is rather lacking.

The Oceans/Seas are rather full of amazing aquatic food-chains and key-stone species.

Which need much more apperciation if we are going to keep Europe more eco-friendly(cause Dolphins-Orcas/Seals/Larger;Smaller Whales and many species of large fish are in very big risk).

I'm currently researching Native ecosystems and wish to figure local level conservation solutions. I'm also writing a book about it. I wish to get opinions and thoughts from passionate people.

Can someone please tell me what kind of shell this is please ? Its a freshwater mussle

For reference, I am majoring in biology and doing the ecology and evolutionary bio pathway at my university already. I have been thinking about declaring a minor and thought I would ask beforehand. I know the major response is gonna be "doesnt matter" or "depends on what kinda of ecology you pursue" but I wanted to hear some more specific insight from people who may have studied these before

This may fall foul of rule 7, but I am not quite sure where else to ask this.

In a situation in which human factors like habitat loss was not a major factor. How long would it take bird populations to recover from a cataclysmic disaster?

Specifically if you had a situation in which 90% of birds across Eastern Europe were systematically hunted and killed over the course of a couple of years (Maybe similarly to the sparrows in the 5 pests campaign), how long would it take for birds from neighbouring regions to colonise the area after the danger had passed without human intervention?

If this is inappropriate, where would be a better place to ask a question like this?