Plants Talk via Fungus

Source: http://suttons.s3.amazonaws.com/p/BUANE26900_3.jpg

Well worth reading!! Published by BBC: "Plants Talk to Each Other Using an Internet of Fungus", written by Nic Fleming.

It's an information superhighway that speeds up interactions between a large, diverse population of individuals. It allows individuals who may be widely separated to communicate and help each other out. But it also allows them to commit new forms of crime.
No, we're not talking about the internet, we're talking about fungi. While mushrooms might be the most familiar part of a fungus, most of their bodies are made up of a mass of thin threads, known as a mycelium. We now know that these threads act as a kind of underground internet, linking the roots of different plants. That tree in your garden is probably hooked up to a bush several metres away, thanks to mycelia.
The more we learn about these underground networks, the more our ideas about plants have to change. They aren't just sitting there quietly growing. By linking to the fungal network they can help out their neighbours by sharing nutrients and information – or sabotage unwelcome plants by spreading toxic chemicals through the network. This "wood wide web", it turns out, even has its own version of cybercrime.

Around 90% of land plants are in mutually-beneficial relationships with fungi. The 19th-century German biologist Albert Bernard Frank coined the word "mycorrhiza" to describe these partnerships, in which the fungus colonises the roots of the plant.

Fungi have been called 'Earth's natural internet'

In mycorrhizal associations, plants provide fungi with food in the form of carbohydrates. In exchange, the fungi help the plants suck up water, and provide nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen, via their mycelia. Since the 1960s, it has been clear that mycorrhizae help individual plants to grow.
Fungal networks also boost their host plants' immune systems. That's because, when a fungus colonises the roots of a plant, it triggers the production of defense-related chemicals. These make later immune system responses quicker and more efficient, a phenomenon called "priming". Simply plugging in to mycelial networks makes plants more resistant to disease.
But that's not all. We now know that mycorrhizae also connect plants that may be widely separated. Fungus expert Paul Stamets called them "Earth's natural internet" in a 2008 TED talk. He first had the idea in the 1970s when he was studying fungi using an electron microscope. Stamets noticed similarities between mycelia and ARPANET, the US Department of Defense's early version of the internet.
Film fans might be reminded of James Cameron's 2009 blockbuster Avatar. On the forest moon where the movie takes place, all the organisms are connected. They can communicate and collectively manage resources, thanks to "some kind of electrochemical communication between the roots of trees". Back in the real world, it seems there is some truth to this.

Avatar: surprisingly accurate when it comes to trees (Credit: Photos 12 / Alamy)

It has taken decades to piece together what the fungal internet can do. Back in 1997, Suzanne Simard of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver found one of the first pieces of evidence. She showed that Douglas fir and paper birch trees can transfer carbon between them via mycelia. Others have since shown that plants can exchange nitrogen and phosphorus as well, by the same route.

These plants are not really individuals

Simard now believes large trees help out small, younger ones using the fungal internet. Without this help, she thinks many seedlings wouldn't survive. In the 1997 study, seedlings in the shade – which are likely to be short of food - got more carbon from donor trees.
"These plants are not really individuals in the sense that Darwin thought they were individuals competing for survival of the fittest," says Simard in the 2011 documentary Do Trees Communicate? "In fact they are interacting with each other, trying to help each other survive."
However, it is controversial how useful these nutrient transfers really are. "We certainly know it happens, but what is less clear is the extent to which it happens," says Lynne Boddy of Cardiff University in the UK.

Tomato plants can receive signals from their neighbours (Credit: Tracy Gunn / Alamy)

While that argument rages on, other researchers have found evidence that plants can go one better, and communicate through the mycelia. In 2010, Ren Sen Zeng of South China Agricultural University in Guangzhou found that when plants are attached by harmful fungi, they release chemical signals into the mycelia that warn their neighbours.

Tomato plants can 'eavesdrop' on defense responses

Zeng's team grew pairs of tomato plants in pots. Some of the plants were allowed to form mycorrhizae.
Once the fungal networks had formed, the leaves of one plant in each pair were sprayed with Alternaria solani, a fungus that causes early blight disease. Air-tight plastic bags were used to prevent any above-ground chemical signalling between the plants.
After 65 hours, Zeng tried to infect the second plant in each pair. He found they were much less likely to get blight, and had significantly lower levels of damage when they did, if they had mycelia.
"We suggest that tomato plants can 'eavesdrop' on defense responses and increase their disease resistance against potential pathogen," Zeng and his colleagues wrote. So not only do the mycorrhizae allow plants to share food, they help them defend themselves.

Pea aphids eat broad bean plants (Credit: Bildagentur-online / McPhoto-Weber / Alamy)

It's not just tomatoes that do this. In 2013 David Johnson of the University of Aberdeen and his colleagues showed that broad beans also use fungal networks to pick up on impending threats – in this case, hungry aphids.
Johnson found that broad bean seedlings that were not themselves under attack by aphids, but were connected to those that were via fungal mycelia, activated their anti-aphid chemical defenses. Those without mycelia did not.
"Some form of signalling was going on between these plants about herbivory by aphids, and those signals were being transported through mycorrhizal mycelial networks," says Johnson.

The internet is also a haven for criminals and pirates (Credit: shotstock / Alamy)

But just like the human internet, the fungal internet has a dark side. Our internet undermines privacy and facilitates serious crime – and frequently, allows computer viruses to spread. In the same way, plants' fungal connections mean they are never truly alone, and that malevolent neighbours can harm them.
For one thing, some plants steal from each other using the internet. There are plants that don't have chlorophyll, so unlike most plants they cannot produce their own energy through photosynthesis. Some of these plants, such as the phantom orchid, get the carbon they need from nearby trees, via the mycelia of fungi that both are connected to.
Other orchids only steal when it suits them. These "mixotrophs" can carry out photosynthesis, but they also "steal" carbon from other plants using the fungal network that links them.
That might not sound too bad. However, plant cybercrime can be much more sinister than a bit of petty theft.

A phantom orchid (Cephalanthera austiniae) (Credit: Tom Hilton, CC by 2.0)

Plants have to compete with their neighbours for resources like water and light. As part of that battle, some release chemicals that harm their rivals.
This "allelopathy" is quite common in trees, including acacias, sugarberries, American sycamores and several species of Eucalyptus. They release substances that either reduce the chances of other plants becoming established nearby, or reduce the spread of microbes around their roots.
Sceptical scientists doubt that allelopathy helps these unfriendly plants much. Surely, they say, the harmful chemicals would be absorbed by soil, or broken down by microbes, before they could travel far.
But maybe plants can get around this problem, by harnessing underground fungal networks that cover greater distances. In 2011, chemical ecologist Kathryn Morris and her colleagues set out to test this theory.

Marigolds are distinctly unfriendly to their neighbours (Credit: blickwinkel / Alamy)

Morris, formerly Barto, grew golden marigolds in containers with mycorrhizal fungi. The pots contained cylinders surrounded by a mesh, with holes small enough to keep roots out but large enough to let in mycelia. Half of these cylinders were turned regularly to stop fungal networks growing in them.
The team tested the soil in the cylinders for two compounds made by the marigolds, which can slow the growth of other plants and kill nematode worms. In the cylinders where the fungi were allowed to grow, levels of the two compounds were 179% and 278% higher than in cylinders without fungi. That suggests the mycelia really did transport the toxins.
The team then grew lettuce seedlings in the soil from both sets of containers. After 25 days, those grown in the more toxin-rich soil weighed 40% less than those in soil isolated from the mycelia. "These experiments show the fungal networks can transport these chemicals in high enough concentrations to affect plant growth,” says Morris, who is now based at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.
In response, some have argued that the chemicals might not work as well outside the lab. So Michaela Achatz of the Berlin Free University in Germany and her colleagues looked for a similar effect in the wild.

A black walnut tree (Juglans nigra) (Credit: foto-zone / Alamy)

One of the best-studied examples of allelopathy is the American black walnut tree. It inhibits the growth of many plants, including staples like potatoes and cucumbers, by releasing a chemical called jugalone from its leaves and roots.
Achatz and her team placed pots around walnut trees, some of which fungal networks could penetrate. Those pots contained almost four times more jugalone than pots that were rotated to keep out fungal connections. The roots of tomato seedlings planted in the jugalone-rich soil weighed on average 36% less.
Some especially crafty plants might even alter the make-up of nearby fungal communities. Studies have shown that spotted knapweed, slender wild oat and soft brome can all change the fungal make-up of soils. According to Morris, this might allow them to better target rival species with toxic chemicals, by favouring the growth of fungi to which they can both connect.
Animals might also exploit the fungal internet. Some plants produce compounds to attract friendly bacteria and fungi to their roots, but these signals can be picked up by insects and worms looking for tasty roots to eat. In 2012, Morris suggested that the movement of these signalling chemicals through fungal mycelia may inadvertently advertise the plants presence to these animals. However, she says this has not been demonstrated in an experiment.

Trees and other plants are linked underground (Credit: All Canada Photos / Alamy)

As a result of this growing body of evidence, many biologists have started using the term "wood wide web" to describe the communications services that fungi provide to plants and other organisms.
"These fungal networks make communication between plants, including those of different species, faster, and more effective," says Morris. "We don't think about it because we can usually only see what is above ground. But most of the plants you can see are connected below ground, not directly through their roots but via their mycelial connections."
The fungal internet exemplifies one of the great lessons of ecology: seemingly separate organisms are often connected, and may depend on each other. "Ecologists have known for some time that organisms are more interconnected and interdependent," says Boddy. The wood wide web seems to be a crucial part of how these connections form.

New Tree of Life Implies Expanding Divergence

Credit: Temple University
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/87524.php

Researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate. The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation, taking about 2 million years on average for a new species to emerge onto the scene.

Sourced from ScienceDaily:

"Temple University researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate.

"The constant rate of diversification that we have found indicates that the ecological niches of life are not being filled up and saturated," said Temple professor S. Blair Hedges, a member of the research team's study, published in the early online edition of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This is contrary to the popular alternative model which predicts a slowing down of diversification as niches fill up with species."

The tree of life compiled by the Temple team is depicted in a new way -- a cosmologically-inspired galaxy of life view -- and contains more than 50,000 species in a tapestry spiraling out from the origin of life.
For the massive meta-study effort, researchers painstakingly assembled data from 2,274 molecular studies, with 96 percent published in the last decade. They built new computer algorithms and tools to synthesize this largest collection of evolutionary peer-reviewed species diversity timelines published to date to produce this Time Tree of Life.
The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation, taking about 2 million years on average for a new species to emerge onto the scene.
"This finding shows that speciation is more clock-like than people have thought," said Hedges. "Taken together, this indicates that speciation and diversification are separate processes from adaptation, responding more to isolation and time. Adaptation is definitely occurring, so this does not disagree with Darwinism. But it goes against the popular idea that adaptation drives speciation, and against the related concept of punctuated equilibrium which associates adaptive change with speciation."
Besides the new evolutionary insights gained in this study, their Timetree of Life will provide opportunities for researchers to make other discoveries across disciplines, wherever an evolutionary perspective is needed, including, for example, studies of disease and medicine, and the effect of climate change on future species diversity.
Researchers around the world utilize molecular clocks to estimate species divergence times, calculating DNA mutational rates with species divergence times from gene and genomic sequences, that together with the fossil record and geological history, provide a constantly improving view of Darwin's "grandeur of life."
These new results add to the decade-long efforts of the Timetree of Life initiative (TTOL), which includes internet tools and a book, led by team members Hedges and Sudhir Kumar. "The ultimate goal of the TTOL is to chart the timescale of life -- to discover when each species and all their ancestors originated, all the way back to the origin of life some four billion years ago," said Hedges.
As an ongoing service to the scientific community, Hedges and Kumar plan to continue adding new data to TTOL from future peer-reviewed studies. They also will improve their current tools, such as web and smartphone apps, and develop new tools, that will make it easier to access the information and to explore the TTOL, and for scientists to update the growing tree with their new data."

Publication Source:
S. Blair Hedges, Julie Marin, Michael Suleski, Madeline Paymer, and Sudhir Kumar. Tree of life reveals clock-like speciation and diversification. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2015 DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msv037
 

Reducing Food Waste

Source: http://www.savethatstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Food-Waste.jpg

After the last post, 'What Are We Doing With Our Waste?', the value of 46% of global waste being organic instigated a series of questions about the way food is handled for the economically privileged countries due to the chain of supply. Interestingly enough, an article published this past October answers a good number of these questions in the USA. Author, R. P. Siegel wrote 'Food Waste is a Bigger Problem Than You Think' :

"Food waste is a horrendous problem in the [USA] that no one seems to want to talk about. Yet food is the one product type that everyone consumes, and while a surprising number of people don’t have it, those that do are shockingly wasteful. As recently as 2012, close to 50 million people experienced food insecurity, not in Africa or Bangladesh, but right here in the USA. Worldwide, that number is over 1 billion people.
That makes the fact that somewhere between a quarter and a third of all food produced worldwide is never eaten all the more shocking. America is the worst offender by far. Here in the states, the portion of food production that goes to waste is closer to 40 percent.
A report by the National Consumer League, called Wasted: Solutions to the American Food Waste Problem, came out last week. It maps the magnitude of the problem and, as the title suggests, offers a number of practical suggestions.
Let’s start with a look at the problem. Most of the food waste in the developing world occurs in the supply chain. Either the farmers suffer crop failures due to weather, insects or disease, or they are unable to harvest the crops efficiently due to inadequate equipment. Inefficient transportation and lack of refrigerated trucks lead to more losses in transit. Consumers, despite the lack of refrigeration, waste less food since they have so little to begin with and they value it.
The situation is inverted in developed countries. Consumers waste more food. American consumers waste 10 times as much food as their counterparts in Southeast Asia.
Why do we waste so much? Well, one reason is because it’s become so cheap. Americans today spend only 6 percent of their total household expenditures on food. Back in 1982 that number was 12 percent. But, as the saying goes, perhaps you get what you pay for. According to Nadya Zhexembayeva, in her book “Overfished Ocean Strategy,” the nutritional value of American food has been declining dramatically. A study of 43 vegetable crops over the period from 1950-1999 shows declines of 20 percent in Vitamin C, 15 percent in iron and 38 percent in riboflavin. American food waste has risen by 50 percent since the seventies at the same time that prices and nutrition have declined. Today’s American family of four throws away anywhere from $1,350 to $2,275 worth of food each year. Put that all together and we are looking at $165 billion, as a nation, being wasted.
The energy, water and land implications of this are enormous. In essence, this means that at a time of increasing resource scarcity, 20 percent of our land, 4 percent of our energy and 25 percent of our water is used to produce food that ends up being thrown out.
Unfortunately, the story does not end once that wasted food is grown. After the plates are scrapped and refrigerators cleaned out, the food in the trash bin must be hauled to the landfill, costing more energy, where it ultimately breaks down into methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. One study in the U.K. found that eliminating all food waste from landfills would be equivalent to taking 1 in 4 cars off the road. One has to wonder: If the true environmental cost of our food were priced in, would we be so willing to waste it?
Hunger in the streets will not simply be solved by reducing waste, but the report tells us that, if we could reduce our level of waste by 30 percent, that would be enough food to feed our 50 million hungry. If only we could get it to them.
So, much for the bad news, though it surely represents opportunities for those with a mind to address them. Let’s take a look at some of the solutions.
Addressing the food waste issue requires a multifaceted approach. First, retailers need to move away from the buy-one-get-one-free mentality. That might be a good way to move product, but much of it gets moved right into the landfill with a brief stopover in the home. That used to be considered acceptable as long as the company was generating profits. Those days will soon be gone. Attitudes can also change about food that is less attractive but still perfectly safe to eat. Perishable foods near expiration can be sold at marked down prices where, if used promptly, it can provide excellent value. More retailers can participate in programs to donate overstock foods to those who are hungry.
But the biggest opportunities are with consumers. Perhaps the biggest barrier is consumer attitudes. Because of the fall in food prices, food is not valued as it was in earlier times. People need better information about how to store foods properly and expiration dates must be clearly labeled. Labels should indicate the date at which food will become unusable.
Perhaps tomorrow’s refrigerators will scan the inventory as they are being stocked and issue reminders such as this one. “Expiring tomorrow: milk and cheese. Use it while it’s still good.”
Public education programs aimed at reducing food waste have been quite effective in Europe. The U.S. EPA has a food recovery hierarchy that spells out the most effective use of unusable food — starting with donating it and ending with composting. Rochester, New York-based Epiphergy followed this hierarchy in its extensive food waste recovery program. Middle stages include producing animal feed, followed by energy.
Cities can help by providing composting services and also by charging for waste collection by the pound instead of using a flat rate. That would encourage people to think twice before throwing things away.
These are all small steps. But when people understand the larger picture that ties them all together, it changes their attitude and their behavior. Experiences in Europe have proven that out. We need to raise awareness here and set ambitious targets for food waste reduction and we need to do it soon."

A few years ago, an interesting documentary about wasted food feeding a family from Trader Joes' Waste:

 

Spoils: Extraordinary Harvest from Alex Mallis on Vimeo.

What Are We Doing With Our Waste?

Source: http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0907/360_plastic_ocean_0731.jpg

When plastics were invented, it transformed the world. It is light, durable, and malleable to create many products that humans utilize.  For many years, modern-day plastics were praised and thought of as a great alternative to glass.  However, with more understanding and awareness of how toxic it can be, such as BPA, and DEHP, many people are becoming more skeptical of container plastic.  Yet, few people are looking at whether or not the plastic they're purchasing can be recycled.  Just think about all the plastic you buy - water bottles, take-away food, toys for children, women's' hairbands, piping for water, wrapping of vegetables, coating of wires - it is everywhere!  But what happens to that plastic when we're done with it?  Well, according to Dr. Jenna Jambeck at the University of Georgia - "8 million metric tons of plastics are entering the oceans every year" - a study utilizing scientific calculations to quantify the amount of plastics entering the ocean, reported on 12 February 2015:

"... found between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean in 2010 from people living within 50 kilometers of the coastline. That year, a total of 275 million metric tons of plastic waste was generated in those 192 coastal countries.
Jambeck, an assistant professor of environmental engineering in the UGA College of Engineering and the study's lead author, explains the amount of plastic moving from land to ocean each year using 8 million metric tons as the midpoint: "Eight million metric tons is the equivalent to finding five grocery bags full of plastic on every foot of coastline in the 192 countries we examined."
To determine the amount of plastic going into the ocean, Jambeck "started it off beautifully with a very grand model of all sources of marine debris," said study co-author Roland Geyer, an associate professor with the University of California, Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, who teamed with Jambeck and others to develop the estimates.
They began by looking at all debris entering the ocean from land, sea and other pathways. Their goal was to develop models for each of these sources. After gathering rough estimates, "it fairly quickly emerged that the mismanaged waste and solid waste dispersed was the biggest contributor of all of them," he said. From there, they focused on plastic.
"For the first time, we're estimating the amount of plastic that enters the oceans in a given year," said study co-author Kara Lavender Law, a research professor at the Massachusetts-based Sea Education Association. "Nobody has had a good sense of the size of that problem until now."
The framework the researchers developed isn't limited to calculating plastic inputs into the ocean."

What is your plastic footprint? Do you know where your rubbish/garbage goes?  Unfortunately, more and more of our rubbish is going into the ocean.  The fact is, we are running out of land to bury our non-renewable or recycle-able wastes and more of it is getting into the oceans each year.  In 2012, the World Bank reviewed the world rubbish and published "What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management"

According to this report, places considered to be 'high income', such as countries within the European Union, Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and Australia have an average of 1.2 kg (2.64 lb) of garbage, per person, per day; about 44% of the worlds waste generation every day.  That's a significant amount of waste that goes into landfills, dumps, and thermal disposal!!  Sadly, only 1 - 19% of the solid waste generated goes into compost, when nearly half (46%) of the waste produced is indeed organic - food, horticulture, animals foods - that could be composted.  And, of the 36% of waste created that is recycle-able, such as paper, plastic, glass, and metals, a mere 1% is actually recycled...  The obvious question is, 'why don't we recycle and compost more?'. If more than half - 55% - of our waste could be renewed for use, either biologically, or for human consumption (such as plastics and metals), why aren't the leading countries doing just that - leading the way - for the benefit of our planet and future generations?

Source: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-06%20at%208.20.17%20PM.png

"Solid wastes are the discarded leftovers of our advanced consumer society. This growing mountain of garbage and trash not only represents and attitude of indifference toward valuable natural resources, but a serious economic and public health problem." - Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the USA

Let us reconsider our use and disposal of wastes...  everything in life is connected. What we do to the world, we do to ourselves!

Immune Systems Shaped by Environment

Not that it is really "news" that different environmental exposure impact a persons' immune system, a study at Stanford University details of how it relates to genetics, finding that even amongst the closest genetically related people (i.e. twins), the immune system is shaped by the environment. Perhaps our grandparents had a point when they said that children playing in the dirt "builds the immune system"!!

Source: http://www.thehoopsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/not-Genes-Environment-Influences-Immune-System.jpg

Found on Environmental News Network:

Why did you get the flu this winter, but your co-workers didn’t? The answer, according to a new study of twins, may have less to do with your genes and more to do with your environment—including your past exposure to pathogens and vaccines.
Our immune system is incredibly complex, with diverse armies of white blood cells and signal-sending proteins coursing through our veins, ready to mount an attack on would-be invaders. Everyone’s immune system is slightly different—a unique mixture of hundreds of these cells and proteins. But the main driver of this variation is unclear. Although scientists know that our immune system can adapt to our environment—that’s why vaccines work, for instance—it is also built by our genes.
To unravel the competing influences of nature and nurture, researchers led by immunologist Mark Davis of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, turned to the gold standard test: a twin study. Identical twins are nearly the same genetically, whereas fraternal twins share only about half of their genes. If a trait is hereditary, identical twins will be more likely to share it than fraternal twins, allowing scientists to tease out the genetic component.
After recruiting 210 identical and fraternal twins between 8 and 82 years old, Davis and colleagues took blood samples and measured more than 200 parameters of their immune systems. For example, they measured the numbers of 95 kinds of immune cells and 51 kinds of proteins. Today, the researchers report online in Cell that identical twins’ immune systems were too different for the variation to boil down to genetics. Indeed, environment overshadowed inheritance in three-quarters of the measurements, and half showed no measurable genetic influence. Moreover, younger twins were more similar than were older twins, evidence that as the twins aged and were exposed to different environments, their immune systems diverged over time.
The researchers also looked for genetic influence in the twins’ responses to flu vaccines. Some people react more strongly to vaccines than others, producing more antibodies: proteins that our bodies manufacture to identify and protect us from invading microbes. If this trait were genetic, identical twins would have similar responses. Instead, the variation in responses was almost entirely the result of environmental differences—presumably, what strains of flu the twins had previously been exposed to.

The original article can be found from the Science Magazine with a concluding statement:

“There’s nothing here that is revolutionary or requires rethinking of our assumptions about how the immune system functions,” says David Baltimore, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. But, he says, “I found it very impressive … that as we age, our immune systems become molded in increasingly individual ways.”

Low Income Affects Education in the USA

The Southern Education Foundation has released a demographic map to include the percentage of students attending public schools that are considered "low income" based upon subsidization for lunches. Now, this statement does not conclude that each of the students qualifying for subsidized lunches and thus considered "low income" are living in poverty (though there are some that are), it means that the students' parental income does not exceed 185% of the poverty level. To qualify for a free lunch, the parental income does not exceed 135% of the poverty level; for reduced lunch fares, parental income does not exceed 185% of the poverty line. The Federal poverty threshold in 2013 was $23,550 for a family of four.

Source: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/Percent-of-Low-Income-Students-in-PS-2015.png

The National Average "Low Income" Percentage
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/school-poverty-study-southern-education-foundation.html?_r=0

The status of US funding for education doesn't seem to be getting better, and neither are the obstacles that the politicians and administrators face... In 1993, the US national average for low-income students was 33%. Twenty years later, in 2013, the average has risen to 51%. It seems the quality of education that can or cannot be afforded, is being hindered by a need to provide food for our children. Surely, the Nation's unemployment percentage has decreased to 5.6% in 2014, and the annual median income has risen from $43,000 to $51,000 from 1967 to 2010. So, why has the national average for "low income" schools increased at a rate that is not proportionate to the national average annual income?? And more importantly, what does this mean for the education of the future generations, if a larger percentage of the funding provided by the government is covering meals rather than books or teachers? What does this mean for the schools and for our children?

Source: http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

According to an article released 17 January 2015 by Education Week:

What does this mean for schools?
Schools have, of course, been confronted by the challenges of poverty for years, but crossing the majority threshold certainly creates a powerful conversation point in debates on the local, state, and federal levels about issues ranging from equity and accountability to student supports.
"That deepening poverty likely will complicate already fraught political discussions on how to educate American students, as prior research has shown students are significantly more at risk academically in schools with 40 percent or higher concentrations of poverty," Education Week wrote when it covered growing trends of poverty in 2013.
And, as Rules for Engagement previously reported, poor families are increasingly moving into the suburbs and living in areas with high concentrations of poverty, creating dimensions to the debate.
The new majority of low-income students is yet another new reality for American educators. U.S. schools hit another major milestone this year, when the U.S. Department of Education projected that a majority of students would be from racial and ethnic minority populations.

While poverty is challenging schools everywhere, some schools have fewer resources to address it.

Worlds Within Worlds - Bacteria "Talk"

Source: http://2012.igem.org/wiki/images/d/d1/Media_5a7257dc5595cb7be3df7954509f3e90.jpeg

Below is a TED Talk by Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk". It's an interesting lecture and is spoken in plain terms - a great 18 minutes of time and well worth viewing. Now, how does bacteria "talking" relate to Environmental Perception? Well, admittedly it may seem as a single point of interest, but only if it is taken at face value... If we start to think about communication and what we think of as "intelligence", perhaps this TED Talk could stimulate a new way of looking at our world and environment.

For anyone who has read or watched the Dr. Seuss "Horton Hears a Who" - there are worlds within worlds! Just as Horton could hear a community of "Whos" in a seeding dandelion, there are communities of organisms beyond what we can see or hear! So the next time you look at a drop of water running from your gutters when it rains, and think it's just H2O and devoid of life, think again. There is a whole community of organisms in that single drop, having a "conversation". Now, think about the natural environment: water from the oceans, fields of grass, leaves in a forest, sand on a beach, the skin on your body... the list goes on. And yes, there are communities of organisms there too!! But don't fret - these are not all "bad" organisms. In fact, there are many organisms that live symbiotically (i.e. mutually beneficial relationship) that help us!! This is how our multifaceted immune system functions. How COOL is that?!?

Now, taking it a step further into a hypothetical... what about our world? Surely, if there are worlds within our world, might there be worlds above our worlds? There isn't a "right" answer here - but is something for you to consider - and is not intended to challenge anyone's personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs. Nonetheless, it is an interesting thought!

Interesting thoughts on how we view the natural world is just one of Environmental Perception's goals: to get people thinking.

Further reading:

    Miller, Melissa B., and Bonnie L. Bassler. "Quorum sensing in bacteria." Annual Reviews in Microbiology 55.1 (2001): 165-199.

    Irvine, Karen. "Worlds Within Worlds." Catalogue Essay (Conner Contemporary Art, Washington, DC) (2009).

    Ley, Ruth E., et al. "Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota." Nature Reviews Microbiology 6.10 (2008): 776-788.

    http://www.davidpratt.info/worlds.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse 
    Bernard Carr, ed. (2007) Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge Univ. Press.
    Ellis, George F.R.; William R. Stoeger; Stoeger, W. R. (2004). "Multiverses and physical cosmology". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 347 (3): 921–936. arXiv:astro-ph/0305292. Bibcode:2004MNRAS.347..921E. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07261.x.