|
Forums36
Topics40,963
Posts557,989
Members18,503
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
6 members (catscratch, Bobbss, Sunil, Fishingadventure, jmartin, RAH),
1,159
guests, and
401
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
Re: Local recommendations against SMB
#554362
Dec 16th a 07:33 PM
|
by RAH |
RAH |
Well - I am willing to do as much of the writing as I can, but I need experts to pressure check things for technical correctness and help identify good citations to support claims. I can probably find the state extension bulletins that offer outdated recommendations along with links. I would strongly suggest we do not mention any individuals responsible. We could cite personal communication for coauthors with direct experience supporting the ineffectiveness of contacting university and state "experts" without identifying any of them specifically. I must admit that I find my interactions less than satisfactory which is part of my motivation for getting this into the scientific literature. It seems like such a paper would be a good reference for explaining the conflict between our current experience with SMB in ponds and the advice given by state officials and university extension personnel. I have published a number of papers like this within my area of expertise. Change can come slow, but it will likely be slower without advocacy.
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|