Reading Assignments
Students are required to write a brief (2-3 pages maximum) review of each reading assignment. The purpose of these reviews is to enhance your understanding of the material. These are to be typed (i.e., word-processed) double-spaced with 1-inch margins (10 or 12 point font). Each review should provide a synopsis of the content and conclusions of the paper. In addition, students are encouraged to provide comments on the paper (e.g., its relevance to other topics discussed in class, critiques, unresolved problems, etc.). In other words, these reviews should resemble book reviews in (1) making it clear what the paper is about, and (2) putting the paper in perspective.
In writing reviews and your term paper do not copy material verbatim from the assignment or other references. That is plagiarism, and will result in a score of 0 for the assignment. Use of long direct quotes is lazy writing and should also be avoided. Paraphrase, to indicate your understanding or interpretation of the ideas or material in the original source.
There will be 5 reading assignments made during the semester. Assignments will be posted here-you are responsible for all posted assigments.
Below is a list of assignments; changes may be made during the semester. All assignments will be posted on the University of Arizona's Electronic Reserves Site; most are also available in the original sources in the Science Library or through SABIO. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view these articles.
Check this page periodically for Assignment Due Dates, and comments on the papers.
List of Readings:
Assignment #1
Sinclair, T. R., L. C. Purcell, and C. H. Sneller. 2004. Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends in Plant Science 9 (2): 70-75.
Review due January 27, 2005
Note that Sinclair et al. are rather skeptical of the often heralded potential for genetic engineering to increase crop yields. Why? Important ecological concepts discussed in this paper include (1) scaling (extrapolating from physiological to ecological scales), and (2) tradeoffs in plant functions affecting growth and yield--how do these enter into the authors' arguments?
Assignment #2
Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, R. W. Howarth, G. E. Likens, P. A. Matson, D. W. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, and D. G. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7: 737-750.
Review due February 17, 2005
Nitrogen is often the limiting resource for crop growth. The authors of this paper point out, however, that human additions of N are causing significant environmental problems. Reviews should address what these problems are, what is agriculture's role, and what (if anything) should be done to reduce N releases.
Assignment #3
Rosenzweig, C., and M. L. Parry. 1993. Potential impacts of climate change on world food supply: a summary of a recent international study. Pp. 87-116 in H. M. Kaiser and T. E. Drennen (eds.), Agricultural dimensions of global climate change. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Review due March 1, 2005
This paper reports on studies using simulation modelling to address problems of climate change and food production on a global scale. What kinds of models do they use, how to they use them, what are the important conclusions?
Assignment #4
Settle, W. H., H. Ariawan, E. T. Astuti, W. Cahyana, A. L. Hakim, D. Hindayana, A. S. Lestari, and Pajarningsih. 1996. Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77: 1975-1988.
Review due March 31, 2005
This paper exams control of the most important insect herbivore of rice, the brown plant hopper. What is the history of this pest, and what are the major problems with "conventional" control? How did understanding the natural history and ecology of an agroecosystem result in improved pest control and reduced pesticide use? Also note the concept of "participatory research" used.
Assignment #5
Vandermeer, J. 2000. The agroecosystem: the modern vision in crisis, the alternative evolving. Pp. 480-509 in R. S. Singh, C. B. Krimbas, D. B. Paul, and J. Beatty (eds.), Thinking about evolution: historical, philosophical, and political perspectives. Volume 2. Cambridge University Press.
and
Martin, M. A. 2001. The future of the world food system. Outlook on agriculture 30: 11-19.
Review due April 21, 2005
These two papers--one by an ecologist (Vandermeer) and one by an economist (Martin)--look at the future of agriculture, reaching very different conclusions. Contrast their views and conclusions in your review. What kinds of information or factors does the ecologist address which are ignored by the economist, and vice-versa?
URL: http://ag.arizona.edu/~spmcl/508Readings.03.htm
4 January 2005