Estimating species relative abundances from museum records

Funding: C.F., U.B. and D.J.R. acknowledge COST Action ‘European Soil-Biology Data Warehouse for Soil Protection’ (EUdaphobase), CA18237, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). AEM thanks the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2019-401). D.B.B. was supported by an NSF Postdoc Research Fellowship in Biology (NSF 000733206), S.M.R. was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant Author Contributions, A.V.S. was supported by NSF 1755336, C.S.M was supported by NSF 1398620 and N.J.G was supported by NSF 2019470.1. Dated, geo-referenced museum specimens are a rich data source for reconstructing species' distribution and abundance patterns. However, museum records are potentially biased towards over-representation of rare species, and it is unclear whether museum records can be used to estimate relative abundance in the field. 2. We assembled 17 coupled field and museum datasets to quantitatively compare relative abundance estimates with the Dirichlet distribution. Collectively, these datasets comprise 73,039 museum records and 1,405,316 field observations of 2,240 species. 3. Although museum records of rare species overestimated relative abundance by 1-fold to over 100-fold (median study = 9.0), the relative abundance of species estimated from museum occurrence records was strongly correlated with relative abundance estimated from standardized field surveys (r2 range of 0.10-0.91, median study = 0.43). 4. These analyses provide a justification for estimating species relative abundance with carefully curated museum occurrence records, which may allow for the detection of temporal or spatial shifts in the rank ordering of common and rare species.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Zds2p Regulates Swe1p-dependent Polarized Cell Growth in Saccharomyces cerevisiae via a Novel Cdc55p Interaction Domain

A C-terminal region in Zds2p (ZH4) is required for regulation of Swe1p-dependent polarized cell growth and this region is necessary and sufficient for interaction with protein phosphatase 2A regulatory subunit, Cdc55p. Our results indicate that the Zds proteins regulate the Swe1p-dependent G2/M checkpoint in a CDC55-dependent manner

Network Power in Collaborative Planning

This article makes a case that collaborative planning is becoming more important, in great part, because it can result in network power. Network power is particularly critical in contemporary conditions where traditionally powerful players are unable to accomplish their objectives alone. Consensus building and other forms of collaborative planning are increasingly in use today as ways of achieving policy results in an era distinguished by rapid change, social and political fragmentation, global interdependence, and conflicting values. The article makes the case that network power can be thought of as a flow that can be partially guided by planners and others, but it is a form of power in which participants all share. It comes into being most effectively, but also paradoxically, when three conditions govern the relationship of agents in a collaborative network: diversity, interdependence, and authentic dialogue (DIAD). When these conditions are met, the participants in the network can develop adaptive innovations that were not apparent or even open to them as individual agents. Like a complex adaptive system, the DIAD network as a whole is more capable of learning and adaptation in the face of fragmentation and rapid change than a set of disconnected agents. Shared meanings emerge from the dialogue and participants can develop identities that link them together. As a result, they are enabled to act both independently and cooperatively for mutual benefit without central direction. Planners have many roles in such networks, as designers and supporters of dialogues creating and maintaining linkages, as direct participants in them, as technical analysts informing them, as facilitators and mediators and as nodes connecting various smaller networks. Planning education needs to incorporate new subject matter to better prepare planners for these roles

Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century

This article makes the case that legally required participation methods in the US not only do not meet most basic goals for public participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust. Both theory and practice are dominated by ambivalence about the idea of participation itself. Both struggle with dilemmas that make the problems seem insoluble, such as the conflict between the individual and collective interest or between the ideal of democracy and the reality that many voices are never heard. Cases are used to draw on an emerging set of practices of collaborative public engagement from around the world to demonstrate how alternative methods can better meet public participation goals and how they make moot most of the dilemmas of more conventional practice. Research shows that collaborative participation can solve complex, contentious problems such as budget decision making and create an improved climate for future action when bitter disputes divide a community. Authentic dialogue, networks and institutional capacity are the key elements. The authors propose that participation should be understood as a multi-way set of interactions among citizens and other players who together produce outcomes. Next steps involve developing an alternative practice framework, creating forums and arenas, adapting agency decision processes, and providing training and financial support

The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity

We live in a time of crisis, uncertainty, and change. We also live in a time when our institutions seem to lack the capacity to deal with these conditions. For example, in the face of a profound terrorist threat, the President of the United States disclaimed responsibility for not being prepared, pointing the finger at Congress and at the FBI. The two intelligence agencies most responsible for protecting the country from such threats not only did not share information, they ignored what their own field agents said. Chains of command, routine procedures, turf protection, secrecy, and displacement of organizational goals meant that no one “connected the dots” that could have led the US to the terrorists before the 9/11 disaster. In the meantime, even as Congress is trying to diagnose the intelligence failures, the White House already has a stock answer: create yet another bureaucracy.This paper is concerned with governance and how some new forms of collaborative dialogue, policy making, and action are filling the gaps left as our formal institutions of government are failing to carry out their responsibilities or where no agency has jurisdiction. These collaborative processes, engaging public and private sector players representing many interests working on tasks that are about public welfare, have become part of an emerging governance system. This system lacks formal authority, is linked in varying ways to formal government, and engages stakeholders who are typically outsiders to public choices. Our goal in this paper is to outline an evaluative framework to assess these emerging collaborative governance efforts in terms of how they are changing our capacity to manage our systems, whether economic, social, or environmental. We hope in this process to explore how these developments may be changing the very concept of governance in contemporary times

Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century

This article makes the case that legally required participation methods in the US not only do not meet most basic goals for public participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust. Both theory and practice are dominated by ambivalence about the idea of participation itself. Both struggle with dilemmas that make the problems seem insoluble, such as the conflict between the individual and collective interest or between the ideal of democracy and the reality that many voices are never heard. Cases are used to draw on an emerging set of practices of collaborative public engagement from around the world to demonstrate how alternative methods can better meet public participation goals and how they make moot most of the dilemmas of more conventional practice. Research shows that collaborative participation can solve complex, contentious problems such as budget decision making and create an improved climate for future action when bitter disputes divide a community. Authentic dialogue, networks and institutional capacity are the key elements. The authors propose that participation should be understood as a multi-way set of interactions among citizens and other players who together produce outcomes. Next steps involve developing an alternative practice framework, creating forums and arenas, adapting agency decision processes, and providing training and financial support

Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century

The combination of the evident failure of traditional methods of citizen participation, according to almost any criterion, and the emergence of new collaborative methods involving interests and citizens has led the authors to try to develop a new paradigm for citizen participation -- one that both will work better and better correspond to the realities of contemporary times and to the emerging practices. The authors have sought in this report to outline the obstacles to change, to delineate the characteristics and practices of collaborative planning, and to develop theory to help understand and advance this mode of citizen participation. They are ultimately making the case that such participatory methods can help to build deliberative democracy and civil society and, in doing so, help us to achieve all the objectives that have been laid out for citizen participation

Collaborative Dialogue as a Policy Making Strategy

Experiments in collaborative thinking are going on in many arenas, including fiscal reform, school reform, habitat conservation, transportation planning and planning for sustainable development. Collaborative dialogue has been most common at the regional and state levels, where organized interest groups can provide representatives to sit at the discussion table, but various efforts, less visible or documented, are also taking place at local levels ranging across budgetary issue, community visioning and land use conflict. Indeed, around the world communities, regions and even nations are seeking collaborative ways to make policy as an alternative to confrontation or top-down decision making. These methods often produce qualitatively different answers than do the traditional methods of policy making.We have entered the Information Age. Technological change is rapid, and information flows around the globe in a matter of hours. Power is fragmented and even powerful agencies or individuals cannot produce the results they want by working alone. We have less shared identity with our fellows than we once did. We cannot conduct business as usual, nor can we count on shared values or objectives. Instead, in addressing a problem, we often have to start from scratch in understanding each other and in understanding what is going on in our societies.In this paper, the authors outline theory, informed by their view of the world as a complex system, to help understand how and why collaborative policy dialogues work in practice and how they differ from traditional policy making