Genetic and phenotypic differentiation between invasive and native Rhododendron (Ericaceae) taxa and the role of hybridization

Hybridization has been repeatedly put forward to explain the invasiveness of Rhododendron ponticum L. in the British Isles. The present study investigates the pattern of ecotypic differentiation and hybridization among native North American R. catawbiense and R. maximum, native R. ponticum from Georgia and Spain, and invasive R. ponticum from Ireland and aims to assess the contribution of hybridization for Rhododendron invasion in the British Isles. Six populations per taxon were analyzed with AFLP markers for genetic dissimilarity, subjected to germination and growth experiments, and tested for frost hardiness. We assessed variation in morphological and ecological characteristics to identify traits displaying evidence of hybridization, thus, promoting invasiveness. Molecular marker analyses revealed a clear distinction between North American R. catawbiense and R. maximum on the one hand, and all R. ponticum populations on the other hand, displaying a complete intermixture of native Spanish and invasive Irish populations. Multivariate analyses of traits revealed leaf length–width ratio, relative growth rates (RGRs) in leaf length, root biomass, and shoot–root ratio to significantly discriminate between the different taxa and unequivocally assigned invasive Irish R. ponticum to the Spanish phenotypes. While the Irish R. ponticum had similar growth traits as conspecific native R. ponticum provenances, germination and biomass allocation were more similar to North American R. catawbiense and R. maximum. Hybridization did not contribute to explaining invasiveness of R. ponticum in Ireland. The similarity in germination and biomass allocation of invasive Irish R. ponticum and North American species has evolved independently and can more probably be attributed to an independent shift within the Ponticum cluster in Ireland

Conciliation biology: the eco-evolutionary management of permanently invaded biotic systems

Biotic invaders and similar anthropogenic novelties such as domesticates, transgenics, and cancers can alter ecology and evolution in environmental, agricultural, natural resource, public health, and medical systems. The resulting biological changes may either hinder or serve management objectives. For example, biological control and eradication programs are often defeated by unanticipated resistance evolution and by irreversibility of invader impacts. Moreover, eradication may be ill-advised when nonnatives introduce beneficial functions. Thus, contexts that appear to call for eradication may instead demand managed coexistence of natives with nonnatives, and yet applied biologists have not generally considered the need to manage the eco-evolutionary dynamics that commonly result from interactions of natives with nonnatives. Here, I advocate a conciliatory approach to managing systems where novel organisms cannot or should not be eradicated. Conciliatory strategies incorporate benefits of nonnatives to address many practical needs including slowing rates of resistance evolution, promoting evolution of indigenous biological control, cultivating replacement services and novel functions, and managing native–nonnative coevolution. Evolutionary links across disciplines foster cohesion essential for managing the broad impacts of novel biotic systems. Rather than signaling defeat, conciliation biology thus utilizes the predictive power of evolutionary theory to offer diverse and flexible pathways to more sustainable outcomes

Response to Comments on "Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness"

Pan et al. claim that our results actually support a strong linear positive relationship between productivity and richness, whereas Fridley et al. contend that the data support a strong humped relationship. These responses illustrate how preoccupation with bivariate patterns distracts from a deeper understanding of the multivariate mechanisms that control these important ecosystem properties

Student Performance in Traditional vs. Online Format: Evidence from an MBA Level Introductory Economics Class

All previous studies comparing online and face-to-face format for instruction of economics compared courses that were either online or face-to-face format and regressed exam scores on selected student characteristics. This approach is subject to the econometric problems of self-selection omitted unobserved variables. Our study uses two methods to deal with these problems. First we eliminate self-selection bias by using students from a course that uses both instruction formats. Second, we use the exam questions as the unit of observation, and eliminate omitted variable bias by using an indicator variable for each student to capture the effect of differences in unobserved student characteristics on learning outcomes. We report the finding that students had a significantly greater chance of answering a question correctly if it came from a chapter covered online

Do Proctored Exams Matter In Online Classes?

Does the format of assessment (proctored or un-proctored exams) affect test scores in online principles of economics classes? This study uses data from two courses of principles of economics taught by the same instructor to gain some insight into this issue. When final exam scores are regressed against human capital factors, the R-squared statistic is 61.6% for the proctored format exams while it is only 12.2% for the un-proctored format. Three other exams in the class that had the proctored final were also un-proctored and also produced lower R-squared values, averaging 30.5%. These two findings suggest that some cheating may have taken place in the un-proctored exams. Although it appears some cheating took place, the results suggest that cheating did not pay for these students since the proctored exam grades were 4.9 points higher than the un-proctored exam grades although this difference was significantly different at only the 10% level. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the class that had the proctored exam although this must have occurred by chance since the students did not know if the exams were going to be proctored in advance so there is no issue of selection bias. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 17% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 83% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that the un-proctored exam format does not encourage as much studying as the proctored format reducing both the returns to human capital and the exam scores

Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?

Our paper asks the question: Does mode of instruction format (live or online format) effect test scores in the principles of macroeconomics classes? Our data are from several sections of principles of macroeconomics, some in live format, some in online format, and all taught by the same instructor. We find that test scores for the online format, when corrected for sample selection bias, are four points higher than for the live format, and the difference is statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the classes that had the online format. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 25% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 75% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that for the relatively older student with the appropriate online learning skill set, and with schedule constrains created by family and job, the online format provides them with a more productive learning environment than does the alternative traditional live class format. Also, because our data are limited to the student s academic transcript, we recommend future research include data on learning style characteristics, and the constraints formed by family and job choices

Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?

Our paper asks the question: Does mode of instruction format (live or online format) effect test scores in the principles of macroeconomics classes? Our data are from several sections of principles of macroeconomics, some in live format, some in online format, and all taught by the same instructor. We find that test scores for the online format, when corrected for sample selection bias, are four points higher than for the live format, and the difference is statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the classes that had the online format. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 25% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 75% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that for the relatively older student with the appropriate online learning skill set, and with schedule constrains created by family and job, the online format provides them with a more productive learning environment than does the alternative traditional live class format. Also, because our data are limited to the student s academic transcript, we recommend future research include data on learning style characteristics, and the constraints formed by family and job choices.economic education, distance education, online instruction, pedagogy