Branta canadensis

If you live in New England you're probably familiar with this bird: the Canada goose. There are several subspecies that look fairly similar and can be found across North America. These geese were introduced to Europe as well, prior to World War II, as an ornamental addition to estates and parks. Ironically they are now considered pests by many (similarly to swans). Compounding the problem is that many populations have stopped their normal migrations and maintain residence in many areas year-round. To attempt to mitigate the potential damage to agriculture, hunting seasons on these birds have been extended in the last decade.

Yesterday I caught several shots of these birds at the pond near my house. The breeding season is in full swing and I managed to see some displaying. It's a little tough to tell but this picture shows a male and a female, the male giving what I believe is a mating call:

The geese will find a mate at roughly two years old and typically they stay monogamous throughout their lives. They lay several eggs each season but mortality is high due to predation and the first migration. However, in populations that do still migrate, the travel is far less grueling than in many bird species. Canada geese take several rests along the way and arrive at the breeding grounds in relatively good shape. Many birds store enormous amounts of energy and spend nearly all of it in flight. I'm often reminded of the ruby-throated hummingbird which flies across the entire Gulf of Mexico to reach its breeding grounds, sometimes against headwinds of up to 20 miles per hour. In comparison the Canada goose experience a leisurely hop down the continent of North America.

These birds are very long lived, having anecdotally been found to live up to 80 years in captivity. They are entirely herbivorous and forage both on land and in the water, as you can see from some of these images.

Though some do consider them pests I think they're beautiful birds. Beautiful...but they do look kind of delicious. Hrmm...

Sources:

EOL: http://www.eol.org/pages/913235

Ducks Unlimited, Canada: http://www.ducks.ca/resource/general/wetland/geese.html#migrate

Spring...maybe?

Spring is at least visiting the Boston area this weekend. Yesterday I got reacquainted with two of my favorite things: my bicycle and my camera. It was still a little cold to stay out too long so I didn't get any amazing shots. But it was nice to take a walk outside.

Things were blooming

and budding.

And though I didn't get any shots of them I saw a whole bunch of flying reptiles. (y'know...birds.)

And of course, fungus!

Certainly there will be more to come now that the city is thawing out. Can't wait to get back outside with my camera.

Mycelial Networks in the News

Well not really news but the April issue of "Garden Design" magazine has an article all about microbial networks and how they impact gardening.

It's actually a great article and if you happen to see the magazine and are interested in gardening I would highly recommend it. It talks about the science and a few newer findings by several researchers. But as I said, the article focuses on the networks' relationship with garden plants. The author describes how plants are capable of requisitioning needed nutrients, pushing out competitors, defending against insects and a lot of other things gardeners worry about by using chemical signals. The upshot? We don't really need those chemicals we put on our gardens.

It finishes up with a strong environmental message: all those chemicals are really bad for the planet, especially the oceans and watersheds. But, hey, since the plants are doing this work we don't really need them anyway. Good stuff. I plan to look a little deeper into the research described so keep an eye out for more posts about mycelial networks on the Mycelial Network.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Reminder

I just wanted to remind you that I'm still collecting data from the survey I designed. Please please, if you haven't yet filled it out click on the "Happy Birthday" post on the right. It should only take a minute or two of your time and it's very helpful for me to get some feedback about the blog. More posting to come!

Science Education! Good God Y'all! What Is It Good For!?

Since this month marks the one year anniversary of the Mycelial Network's origins I've been thinking a bit about what this blog's purpose is and actually the purpose of science education in general.

The science blogs that I read tend to fall into two camps, maybe three. There are science blogs that report on and/or describe science findings. There are those that do that but in addition are very political, dealing heavily with topics such as vaccinations, the teaching of evolution, climate change, etc. Then there are blogs that are mainly just about interesting science but don't necessarily shy away from the more political implications of the science.

I've tended to fall mainly in the first category. I don't think science writers shouldn't weigh in on political issues. It's actually more that it frustrates me that these things are political. From my perspective evolution is a real, objectively observed phenomenon, vaccines contain and often completely eliminate disease and climate change is happening and people are directly responsible. I don't really want to get into a "debate" about climate science because in my "opinion" the facts are in and they are very, very clear. I simply don't believe there is a debate worth having.

So I tend to focus my time on trying to show my readers how beautiful, strange, creepy, bizarre, and wonderful the natural world is. This has become a more meaningful and straightforward goal.

But I wonder: what do my readers think? What is the purpose of science education? Is it productivity and progress? Do we need better science education to compete with China?

Is it political? Do we need science education because science is involved in some of the most important political "debates" of the last few decades?

Is it just interesting? Do we need science education because science is wonderful? Does this trivialize it?

Please leave a comment and tell me what you think either as an educator or as someone who enjoys being educated her/himself.

Unintelligent Design: Dracula Ants

Some of you may know that I think about evolution a lot. One of the big reasons I got into science education was to increase evolution literacy. It deeply disturbs and depresses me that about half of the people that live in our country don't believe in evolution. I think some of those people simply don't know how it works or have a total misunderstanding of what we're saying when we say the word "evolution."

One of the big groups trying to keep people scared of evolution is known as the "intelligent design" movement. People like "biochemist" (in quotes because he brings shame to his field) Michael Behe claim that because the small features (such as a flagella or cilia) of microorganisms are actually quite complex and because the parts of those features don't "do" anything by themselves they could not have evolved by natural selection.

But the thing is sometimes things just mutate. And sometimes the function of a structure is lost over time. Evolution is not a straight line. It meanders and wobbles and every now and then a form evolves that happens to be better suited to a particular niche.

And sometimes in nature you find a species or a structure that really...just seems dumb. I may have written about this before but take the human lower back. People have bad backs because we evolved upright walking out of four-limbed locomotion. The vast majority of human anatomy didn't change and so pressure is applied in all kinds of weird and awkward ways on our lower back muscles. Doesn't seem so intelligent.

So earlier this week I read about another great example. As you may have noticed ants have really tiny waists. As a result they need to subsist on liquids. Most ant species get this liquid nutrient from the predigested food of their larvae. This is already a weird situation. They need their babies to chew up their food for them. It doesn't seem particularly intelligent to design an animal that can't eat by itself.

Now even weirder and probably dumber is the Dracula ant. This particular species diverged from other ants about 100 million years ago and does not feed in the same way. Instead they feed on blood. But not, like you might expect, the blood of other animals. It feeds on the blood of...wait for it...the larvae. The adult ants actually have to slice into the larval ants and drink their blood. How is this a good idea? It's not. But it's an example of natural selection at work. A problem needed to be solved and the genes involved mutated so that these particular animals would feed in this bizarre and, frankly, somewhat dumb manner. Now if adults feeding on the blood of babies isn't a great argument against intelligent design, I'm not sure what is.

Thanks to Myrmecos and Ugly Overload for the info:

http://uglyoverload.blogspot.com/2011/03/possibly-most-horrible-ants-ever.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FKhcq+%28Ugly+Overload%29

Mistakes

If you are a science educator, or really any kind of educator, you have probably made a factual mistake either talking with students or colleagues. I made one the other day and it got me thinking about what the role of these kinds of mistakes have in our minds, in our work, etc.

I think especially as a science educator I feel pressure to always know things all the time. I have become very comfortable with saying "I don't know" and I do love to talk about uncertainty in science and things that even the great body of knowledge we call "science" has not yet learned. But still, whenever I do say those three words "I don't know" I strive to remember what it was that I didn't know and then learn it.

That's a very different experience from actively telling someone something that you, in the moment, believe to be true and then finding out later that you were wrong. I certainly try not to dwell on it but thinking about it I've found that this kind of mistake has one very beneficial side effect: there is no way I'm going to forget that information that I was wrong about. I'll remember it in a year. I'll remember it, I'm willing to bet, in fifty years.

This also ties in with a topic I think about a lot: misinformation and misconception. These are the science educators strongest opponents. And the strong negative feeling I have after making this kind of mistake is that I have, hopefully in a very small way, added to that great body of misunderstanding and misinformation instead of confronting and sorting through it.

Young children misunderstand stuff all the time though. So hopefully they'll just have forgotten.

What's your experience of factual mistakes in the classroom?