On organic coffee farm, complex interactions keep pests under control
Proponents of organic farming often speak of nature’s balance in ways that sound almost spiritual, prompting criticism that their views are unscientific and naïve. At the other end of the spectrum are those who see farms as battlefields where insect pests and plant diseases must be vanquished with the magic bullets of modern agriculture: pesticides, fungicides and the like.
Which view is more accurate? A 10-year study of an organic coffee farm in Mexico suggests that, far from being romanticized hooey, the “balance and harmony” view is on the mark. Ecologists John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto of U-M and Stacy Philpott of the University of Toledo have uncovered a web of intricate interactions that buffers the farm against extreme outbreaks of pests and diseases, making magic bullets unnecessary. Their research is described in the July/August issue of the journal BioScience.
Photo courtesy David Gonthier
The major players in the system — several ant species, a handful of coffee pests, and the predators, parasites and diseases that affect the pests — not only interact directly, but some species also exert subtle, indirect effects on others, effects that might have gone unnoticed if the system had not been studied in detail.
A key species in the complex web is the tree-nesting Azteca ant (Azteca instabilis). The ants aren’t particular about the kind of tree they live in, but for some reason their nests are found in only about 3 percent of shade trees on the farm, and ant-inhabited trees aren’t randomly distributed — they’re found in clumps.
In addition to Azteca, other ant species protect scale, and some of these ants are predators of the coffee berry borer and leaf miner, which are also coffee pests. The researchers are still working out the details of the relationships among the various ants and the other species with which they interact.
— Nancy Ross-Flanigan, News Service
Fuel-efficiency formula needs cars wired with better brainpower, less vroom
A U-M researcher says it’s possible to triple fuel economy in gasoline-powered cars by 2035, but it’ll mean getting our automotive kicks from smart electronic technology and other forms of virtual performance rather than horsepower.
As federal regulators are poised to propose the next round of fuel economy mandates, John DeCicco, a senior lecturer at the School of Natural Resources and Environment and faculty fellow with the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, says the most cost-effective answer is steady progress in advanced combustion engines and hybrid drive — but stopping short of plugging in and requiring super batteries or gaseous fuels.
He finds that the solution is in our garages if Americans shift gears in terms of priorities. What DeCicco calls a “revolution by evolution” avoids politically trendy breakthrough technologies that will remain too expensive for most consumers.
“If we really prioritize efficiency, we can get just as far with less sticker shock,” he says. “Evolutionary change can be of profound consequence for cutting oil use and greenhouse gas emissions, and do so with manageable costs and minimal risks for automakers.”
DeCicco has completed a study for The Energy Foundation examining how far fuel economy can be taken if it becomes a top priority in product planning.
His analysis shows that optimizing internal combustion engines plus rising adoption of grid-free hybrids will enable new fleet efficiency to reach 52 mpg by 2025 and 74 mpg by 2035.
The report develops new interpretations of technology cost estimates that better depict the benefits of ongoing innovation while acknowledging the limits of how much consumers can spend. The analysis reflects the three-way trade-off among efficiency, performance and cost that the car market is likely to face in the years ahead.
— Sue Nichols, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute
Surgeons impact whether a woman gets breast reconstruction
When breast cancer surgeons regularly confer with plastic surgeons prior to surgery, their patients are more likely to have reconstruction, according to a new study led by researchers at the Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Where a woman goes for breast cancer treatment can vary widely — ranging from small private practices to large hospital settings. That choice can impact the type of care a woman receives when it comes to reconstruction.
“Breast reconstruction is a very complex treatment issue that requires a lot of discussion. Our results suggest that discussion can be quite different depending on where a patient gets initial treatment,” says lead study author Dr. Steven Katz, professor of internal medicine at the Medical School and professor of health management and policy at the School of Public Health.
“Patients with similar characteristics or preferences may get a different story from different surgeons — and this depends largely on whether a plastic surgeon is on the treatment decision team from the get-go. Plastic surgeons are the ones with the expertise to explain the increasingly complicated procedure options,” Katz adds.
Results of the study appear online in the journal Medical Care and will be published in the October issue.
“This is a deeply intimate and important decision that women have to make. It should be made with the right information about reconstruction options in consultation with a plastic surgeon involved up front in the treatment planning,” says Katz, co-director of the socio-behavioral program at the U-M Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Additional U-M authors are Sarah Hawley, Paul Abrahamse, Christopher Friese, Dr. Amy Alderman, Dr. Jennifer Griggs and Dr. Timothy Hofer.
— Nicole Fawcett, UMHS Public Relations
Many values unite Americans, despite divisions
Americans are united when it comes to many core values, according to a U-M survey. But the nation is deeply divided about certain issues, including gay marriage, immigration and universal health care.
Those are the some of the findings from a series of nationally representative surveys of approximately 500 Americans, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at three times over the past year. The surveys, funded by ISR and the Carnegie Foundation, were conducted as part of the monthly U-M/Thomson Reuters Surveys of Consumers in June and December 2009, and in March 2010. A fourth survey will be conducted this month.
“More than 90 percent of those surveyed agreed that all people deserve equal opportunities in life,” says sociologist Wayne Baker, the project’s principal investigator. “Just about everyone also agreed that respect for people from different racial and ethnic groups, and for people of different faiths, is also important to them.”
In fact, these values are so widely held that they can be said to be American universals, says Baker, who is a faculty associate at ISR and a professor at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business.
Baker discusses the survey findings in his daily blog on American values and ethics at www.ourvalues.org.
Only about a third of Americans agreed that freedom is being left alone to do what they want. But more than 90 percent of Americans agreed that freedom meant being able to express unpopular ideas without fearing for their safety.
“There was no difference between liberals and conservatives. The vast majority on both sides agreed,” Baker says.
— Diane Swanbrow, News Service
Workplace wellness plan saves money over time
A Midwest utility company learned firsthand that it pays to keep healthy employees fit, reaping a net savings of $4.8 million in employee health and lost work time costs over nine years, U-M research shows.
A study of workplace wellness programs is one of the only longitudinal studies of its kind, says co-author Louis Yen, associate research scientist in the School of Kinesiology’s Health Management Research Center.
Over the nine years, the utility company spent $7.3 million for the program and showed $12.1 million in savings associated with participation. Medical and pharmacy costs, time off and worker’s compensation factored into the savings, says Alyssa Schultz, research area specialist intermediate.
The findings are good news for companies looking to implement wellness programs, says Dee Edington, director of the Health Management Research Center and principal investigator.
“One of the advantages of the study is it shows that a sustainable program will give you savings,” says Edington, also a professor in the School of Kinesiology and a research scientist in the School of Public Health.
So what should a company do when looking for a benefit plan for employees?
“You want a benefit plan that will take care of your sick people but also keep your healthy people healthy and working,” Edington says.
— Laura Bailey, News Service
