![]() |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Jan, do you still have your grid? It sounds like you were very thorough. I would agree with every aspect you discussed with the exception of the last one - broad application to all caudates would be nice but for $1000 I don't think we should dwell on the "broadness" - significance to a target species has its own merits too. I'd very much like to see your grid prior to the "broad applicability" criterion.
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
I had a difficult time deciding between 4 and 9. I ultimately went with 4. This work will be taking place regionally speaking in my own backyard so I think that it is important to know if chytrid is present and if so to what extent. The choice was not easy to make however as I have a true fondness for hellbenders as well. Also, I'll have to admit that the hobbyist in me was wanting to vote for the one dealing with Bolitoglossa breeding however in the grand scheme of things I think that environmental studies should come first.
Chip |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
#4 Is chytridiomycosis affecting Appalachian salamanders?
That one sounded like a *really* valuable research to me, as far as I can understand it. |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Jan, can you tell us which 6 you found to fulfill all 6 of the objective criteria?
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
I'm with Nathan and Eva. Who knew donating money would be so much work? |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
I voted for the chytrid fungus testing on sals in Peru, mainly for the fact we all know the effects this fungus is having on the amphibian population, and more importantly to me, that the money we raised covers the WHOLE project rather than a proportion, and i like the idea that we, as a community, could make a complete difference to the sals in that area, and that it was a Caudata funded project.
Ben |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
From re-reviewing the grid, there were eight applications that satisfied all of the requirements: these were #2, #4, #9, #10, #11, #14, #15 and #17. The differentiator among these, in my opinion, was the requirement of ‘dissemination of results’ – how will the research results be disseminated? As I stated, my bias is for results to be presented at meetings and submitted to (and hopefully published in) peer reviewed journals…scrutinized science undertaking with wider audience exposure. To that end, there were three that indicated both methods of dissemination would be pursued: #2, #9 and #11. The others either mentioned just one method or were vague, e.g., ‘data will be published’…. which left me wondering, where? And the answer to that can vary widely and may lack significance. In my final selection, I voted for the one that IMO gave the best ROI.
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Jan, thank you. I think you're being somewhat unfair with the "where will it be published" part. Most scientists wouldn't publish quality projects outside of peer-reviewed journals - to do so doesn't really help one's CV, one's perception in the eyes of one's employer, or one's prospects for an upward career trajectory within academia.
Here are my opinions as promised. Please undertand that I am giving a short honest assessment of each project and that I tend not to minse words - please understand that I intend no offence!
For myself, I've whittled the list down to three choices: #9, #11, #14. |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Ok so I'll throw my hat in the ring. I've been trying to decide between 4, 11, and 13. I am strongly leaning towards #4 but I don't wanna vote for it quite yet cause I kinda feel biased since it's pratically in my backyard as well. Being from this region though I could see some of the benefits as some species here only have 2, 3, or 4 county ranges. As quick as chytrid has spread in some areas it wouldn't take no time to wipe out these species.
Oh well, I may make up my mind one of these days before voting is over with.:rolleyes: |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
Your opinions, considerations and insight on each proposal are much appreciated - thanks for putting this together - it is quite valuable. Ultimately, it appears that we have landed on and favor the same grant applications. |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Although iīm inclined to be appealed by number 16, iīm not convinced by it...
It may be a bit of a silly reason to decide which project to vote, but after seeing Nick Bakerīs program on hellbenders some time ago, i canīt help but vote for number 9.....itīs still in my head :S. |
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
I would like to vote for #9 to help out the hellbenders
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Sorry I thought it was for those that donated to Amphibian Ark? Sorry again my mistake.
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
Quote:
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
cichlidjedi was one of the donors to the drive and he didn't get flagged - sorry about that. If anyone else has this problem please let me know (unfortunately I am only human!).
|
Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
With 5 days left to go, right now we have a clear leader. I don't think we'll need another poll if this keeps up. However I remind those who have yet to vote (which is at least half of the voters) that you have 5 days remaining.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:56. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by
vBShout v6.2.18 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website & Content Đ2001 - 2018 Caudata.org
(Users retain image copyrights)