The specially modified leaves of
the carnivorous cobra lily actually
encourage entire micro-ecosystems
to set up housekeeping. The leaves
attract some insects that are captured
and consumed. But other insects lay
their eggs in the plant—one that
could have them for lunch. “The
larvae develop in these leaves and
live among numerous other species
like mites, other invertebrates and
microbes,” Kneitel says. “It’s an entire
community living off decomposed
insects inside the carnivorous plant.”
But the good times don’t last for
long. “The communities are highly
diverse initially but over time—I don’t
know why—a lot of the species arelost and one dominant species remains,” he says.
It appears to have something to do with the aging process.
Cobra lilies produce new leaves every two or three weeks, Kneitel
says, so there is a gradient of oldest leaf to next oldest, all the way
down. And the communities that live in them are all very different.
But when you compare leaves of the same age from plant to plant
they are almost identical.
“I see it as a space-time issue,” he says. “There’s some assembly
process going on whereby space seems to be less important than
what is happening through time. If space was more important, all
the communities on the plants would be more similar.”
For the species that survive, leaf age seems to be the key to life.
This summer Kneitel hopes to get to the heart of the matter. He’ll
be in the Las Plumas National Forest near Quincy to try to determine
why some species head to extinction and one species is able to
win out—it could be the one that is the best competitor or it could
be something happens over the life of the community such as a
change in pH or dissolved oxygen.
Kneitel says the answer could tell them a lot about the population
and community dynamics of other communities, and in a
shorter timeframe. “Following the population dynamics of larger,
longer-lived species such as trees, which live several hundred
years, and some mammals, which can live on to several years, is
more difficult to follow. We get to see hundreds of generations in a
few months.”
Talk about a tough neighborhood. In his studies with carnivorous plants, biology professor Jamie Kneitel has found a living space that features the ultimate in bait and switch advertising.
Minding young minds Too strict? If so, it could impact your preschooler’s social
confidence, says researcher Kimberly Gordon Biddle.
The child development professor’s two-year study shows that when three- and four-year-olds are incessantly scolded they are likely to become reticent in social situations with their peers.
“It’s okay to have limits and controls but if you are really, really harsh it affects them socially,” she says.
Specifically, Gordon Biddle discovered that parents who have an authoritarian or controlling parenting style can impact their child’s social motivation. Motivation, she says, is key, because the over-disciplined child loses his or her desire to jump into a social situation.
Gordon’s exploratory study included 80 parents and 40 three- and fouryear- olds. All of the children came from two-parent homes. Gordon Biddle then applied her interview observation technique to measure the children’s motivation. The researchers discovered a high correlation between the stricter parents and the socially inept children.
On a scale, with 100 being the most social, children whose parents were classified as “authoritarian” scored 55—significantly lower than their more gently disciplined playmates who scored 82 on the same scale.
Interestingly, Gordon Biddle says, overly permissive parenting did not have an impact on a child’s motivation at this age. However, if continued, Gordon Biddle suspects, it will impact other behaviors as they develop socially.
Based on the findings, Gordon Biddle advises parents to monitor their preschoolers’ social interactions but refrain from controlling them. And that discipline be carried out in a loving, informative manner.
“It’s okay to have some controls and limits but you also need to discuss things,” she says. “A four-year-old is pretty intelligent.”
confidence, says researcher Kimberly Gordon Biddle.
The child development professor’s two-year study shows that when three- and four-year-olds are incessantly scolded they are likely to become reticent in social situations with their peers.
“It’s okay to have limits and controls but if you are really, really harsh it affects them socially,” she says.
Specifically, Gordon Biddle discovered that parents who have an authoritarian or controlling parenting style can impact their child’s social motivation. Motivation, she says, is key, because the over-disciplined child loses his or her desire to jump into a social situation.
Gordon’s exploratory study included 80 parents and 40 three- and fouryear- olds. All of the children came from two-parent homes. Gordon Biddle then applied her interview observation technique to measure the children’s motivation. The researchers discovered a high correlation between the stricter parents and the socially inept children.
On a scale, with 100 being the most social, children whose parents were classified as “authoritarian” scored 55—significantly lower than their more gently disciplined playmates who scored 82 on the same scale.
Interestingly, Gordon Biddle says, overly permissive parenting did not have an impact on a child’s motivation at this age. However, if continued, Gordon Biddle suspects, it will impact other behaviors as they develop socially.
Based on the findings, Gordon Biddle advises parents to monitor their preschoolers’ social interactions but refrain from controlling them. And that discipline be carried out in a loving, informative manner.
“It’s okay to have some controls and limits but you also need to discuss things,” she says. “A four-year-old is pretty intelligent.”
Controversy leads to fresh findings
Jordan Halgas almost let one her most significant “teachable moments” slip by.
Word had reached campus of a historic event—San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was allowing same-sex couples to marry. And the business professor’s students were buzzing.
“We had a class discussion about it for a short time, but then I would steer the discussion back to what I’d planned for class that day,” Halgas says. “Then it kept coming up.”
Through the conversation, the students received a substantive lesson in constitutional law. “Refusing same-sex couples the right to legally marry is a denial of due process and equal protection,” Halgas says. “The value in the lesson was that the students had to argue their position without their emotions getting in the way. They could debate it only from a purely legal point of view.”
The class discussion led Halgas to further research the issue to look at the implications same-sex marriage would have on businesses. She found it would not impose a negative impact—in fact, she discovered just the opposite.
“The vast majority of small businesses would not experience any increase in their health care costs,” Halgas says. “In addition, such marriages would result in gains to California’s state budget of $22.5 to $25.2 million a year, as well as an increase in tourism dollars—a possible increase of $100 million per year and $10 million per year in sales taxes.
Word had reached campus of a historic event—San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was allowing same-sex couples to marry. And the business professor’s students were buzzing.
“We had a class discussion about it for a short time, but then I would steer the discussion back to what I’d planned for class that day,” Halgas says. “Then it kept coming up.”
Through the conversation, the students received a substantive lesson in constitutional law. “Refusing same-sex couples the right to legally marry is a denial of due process and equal protection,” Halgas says. “The value in the lesson was that the students had to argue their position without their emotions getting in the way. They could debate it only from a purely legal point of view.”
The class discussion led Halgas to further research the issue to look at the implications same-sex marriage would have on businesses. She found it would not impose a negative impact—in fact, she discovered just the opposite.
“The vast majority of small businesses would not experience any increase in their health care costs,” Halgas says. “In addition, such marriages would result in gains to California’s state budget of $22.5 to $25.2 million a year, as well as an increase in tourism dollars—a possible increase of $100 million per year and $10 million per year in sales taxes.