text:
Stable and fluctuating temperature effects on the development rate and survival of two malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus
Candice L Lyons1,2,
Maureen Coetzee2 &
Steven L Chown3
Understanding the biology of malaria vector mosquitoes is crucial to understanding many aspects of the disease, including control and future outcomes. The development rates and survival of two Afrotropical malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus, are investigated here under conditions of constant and fluctuating temperatures. These data can provide a good starting point for modelling population level consequences of temperature change associated with climate change. For comparative purposes, these data were considered explicitly in the context of those available for the third African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae.
Twenty five replicates of 20–30 eggs were placed at nine constant and two fluctuating temperatures for development rate experiments and survival estimates. Various developmental parameters were estimated from the data, using standard approaches.
Lower development threshold (LDT) for both species was estimated at 13-14°C. Anopheles arabiensis developed consistently faster than An. funestus. Optimum temperature (Topt) and development rate at this temperature (μmax) differed significantly between species for overall development and larval development. However, Topt and μmax for pupal development did not differ significantly between species. Development rate and survival of An. funestus was negatively influenced by fluctuating temperatures. By contrast, development rate of An. arabiensis at fluctuating temperatures either did not differ from constant temperatures or was significantly faster. Survival of this species declined by c. 10% at the 15°C to 35°C fluctuating temperature regime, but was not significantly different between the constant 25°C and the fluctuating 20°C to 30°C treatment. By comparison, previous data for An. gambiae indicated fastest development at a constant temperature of 28°C and highest survival at 24°C.
The three most important African malaria vectors all differ significantly in development rates and survival under different temperature treatments, in keeping with known distribution data, though differences among M and S molecular forms of An. gambiae likely complicate the picture. Increasing temperatures associated with climate change favour all three species, but fluctuations in temperatures are detrimental to An. funestus and may also be for An. gambiae. This may have significant implications for disease burden in areas where each species is the main malaria vector.
Malaria is Africa's most significant vector-borne disease, accounting for over 200 million clinical cases and well over half a million deaths per year [1]. Although several factors affect malaria prevalence, including the efficacy of control interventions, it depends significantly on the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): the average number of infectious mosquito bites one person receives in a year [2]. The EIR is, in turn, dependent on the human biting rate, which is a product of the number of mosquitoes per human and the number of bites per mosquito. The number of mosquitoes in a population depends on the number of adults entering and leaving the population [3–5], both of which are affected significantly by environmental temperature. Low temperatures tend to limit aquatic stage development and adult activity of some Anopheles species, while extremely high temperatures lead to substantial mortality [6–8]. In the intermediate temperature range, development rate, feeding rate and adult survival increase with temperature, as is true of most ectotherms [9], often leading, in the case of vector-borne disease, to an increase in disease prevalence [3].
Given these relatively straightforward relationships between temperature and significant population parameters [3, 5, 10], it is perhaps not surprising that forecasts of increasing malaria burden with climate change have been made [11, 12]. However, such forecasts are controversial for several reasons. First, despite claims that overall the disease burden will increase, several analyses have suggested that in some areas incidence will decrease and in others increase, leading to overall stasis (e.g. [13–15]) or even an overall observed range contraction in regions of stable malaria transmission [16]. When coupled with human intervention, the outcome in many regions should be a decline in disease prevalence. Second, much of the focus has been on changes in mean annual temperature. However, climate change involves more than a change in mean temperatures. Rather, extremes are changing too, with extreme high temperatures being more common than in the past [17]. Moreover, fluctuating temperatures can result in substantially different likelihoods of malaria transmission than constant temperatures [18, 19], and the predicted temperature for optimal transmission has also been estimated at lower than previously thought [20]. In consequence, much attention is now being given to developing spatially accurate and biologically more realistic forecasts of changes in malaria prevalence [4, 21, 22], reflecting a general trend in the field of climate change impact forecasting for vectors and other species [23–25].
Mechanistic models [26, 27] provide a useful means to forecast changes in malaria prevalence and can include significant nuances, such as the likely influence of evolutionary change and variation among species, populations and genotypes [26, 28]. Nonetheless, they are dependent on the availability of basic physiological data, such as thermal responses, which, though relatively straightforward to collect, are often missing for vectors. Whilst much information is available on temperature effects on major life cycle components of the African vector Anopheles gambiae[7, 29–31], much less is known about the thermal biology of the other two major vectors, An. arabiensis and An. funestus[32]. Indeed, one of the most comprehensive recent modeling approaches has highlighted the need for such data for these species [4]. These species are especially important in south-eastern Africa, an area for which environmental niche models suggest an increase in disease prevalence with climate change [5, 12]. Although recent work has provided comprehensive information on extreme tolerance limits for An. arabiensis and An. funestus[8], the effects of temperature on development and intrinsic survival from egg to adult, have not been as comprehensively investigated (though see [29, 33]). Furthermore, the influence of fluctuations in temperature on development, have not been extensively examined for African malaria vectors, despite the fact that fluctuating temperatures clearly influence other aspects of malaria transmission [18, 19], and have long been known to affect anopheline development rate [34, 35], as is the case for other insects [36].
This study examined the effects of constant and fluctuating temperatures on the development and survival of the two malaria vectors, An. arabiensis and An. funestus, while also making explicit comparisons with data collected elsewhere for An. gambiae. The results contribute to the information that is required for mechanistic forecasts of likely changes in mosquito population density, and therefore, ultimately, provide experimental data for estimating EIR associated with the change in climate that is taking place across southern Africa, and which is forecast to be substantial in the future [37–40].
Colony maintenance and egg collection
Eggs were collected from two laboratory colonies: the KGB-strain of Anopheles arabiensis originally established from individuals collected in Zimbabwe in 1975; and the FUMOZ-strain of An. funestus originating from individuals collected in Mozambique in 2000 [41]. Although the colonies have shown some laboratory adaptation in thermal responses, these have typically not been pronounced [8].
Colonies are routinely maintained at the insectary temperature of 25°C (± 2°C) and relative humidity of 80% (checked with a Masons thermohygrometer, Brannan, UK), with a 12:12 light/dark cycle and 30 min dusk/dawn simulation. The adults used in these experiments were provided with a 10% sugar water solution ad libitum and females were provided with a blood meal every alternative day. Anopheles arabiensis usually requires at least two blood meals to produce eggs, while An. funestus requires at least three [42]. Hence, only females that had received at least three blood meals were used for egg collections. Female mosquitoes of each colony were given no longer than half of one dark cycle (6 h) in which to lay eggs in the provided egg-plates (darkened plastic petri dishes 70 mm diameter filled with distilled water). This 6 h period was chosen to allow the chorion of the mosquito eggs to harden before being disturbed (see [42]). Following the 6 h period, eggs from each species were separated into 200 ml bowls (filled with distilled water) with between 20 to 30 eggs per bowl. Twenty-five bowls were set up per species. These 25 replicates were the basic sample unit used for assessment of development rate at each of several temperatures (i.e. n=25 per temperature): constant temperatures of 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32 and 35°C; and two fluctuating temperature regimes: 15°C to 35°C, and 20°C to 30°C, each with a mean temperature of 25°C, and the lowest temperature set for the 12 hour scotophase of a 12L:12D cycle. These temperatures were chosen to represent those within which development to adulthood is known to occur in other Anopheles species (e.g. [7, 29]). Temperatures were maintained to within ±0.5°C through the use of PTC-1 Peltier portable temperature control cabinets (Sable Systems, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA) or through the use of an incubator (SANYO, MIR-154, SANYO Electric Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) and were checked using a mercury thermometer. The photoperiod was maintained through non-heating fluorescent tubes connected to a timer. Eggs were maintained under these conditions and larvae reared to eclosion. To prevent eggs from sticking to the sides of replicate bowls, they were washed down using distilled water of the same temperature as each relevant treatment. Larval food comprised a mixture of finely ground dog biscuits and yeast extract. Larvae were fed once or twice daily depending on instar, and adults were killed following eclosion.
Development rate
All temperature treatments were checked for any developmental change every 8–12 hours depending on stage of development. The positions of replicates were randomized in the incubators. The length of time that 50% of the population in each replicate took to reach each life stage, and total time to adulthood (again 50% of the population) was recorded for each of the 25 replicates per temperature treatment and for each species. The 50% criterion was used because of several substantial outliers, which could not be distinguished as the outcome of delayed egg hatch [43] or experimental artefact, and were therefore given less weight using this procedure. Rate-temperature curves were plotted for each species using 1/mean time (days-1) to larva/pupa/adult emergence per temperature. Using the linear part of the curve for each species (between 15°C and 32°C for An. arabiensis and between 15°C and 30°C for An. funestus), ordinary least squares linear regression as implemented in R (v. 2.15.1) (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to estimate the lower developmental threshold (LDT: -slope/intercept in °C) and the sum of effective temperatures (SET: 1/slope in degree-days) for each life stage change (i.e. egg, larva, pupa), and for overall development from egg to adult [44–46]. To compare overall development rates between the two fluctuating temperature treatments and their constant mean of 25°C, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used (R v. 2.15.1) for each species. Normality and homogeneity of variance were first checked using Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively (Additional file 1). In some cases deviations from normality were observed, but generally, few deviations occurred and the model assumptions were met, allowing use of a parametric ANOVA which is reasonably robust and insensitive to deviations from normality, provided designs are balanced [47]. Mean development time in days for each stage and overall across all 11 temperature treatments are shown in Additional file 2. To compare development rates of each stage and for overall development between species, general linear models were implemented in R (v. 2.15.1) for each stage comparison and overall egg to adult development using temperature and species as categorical predictors in the model and development rates as response variables. Deviations from normality occurred in some instances, but model assumptions were generally met [47, 48] (Additional files 3 and 4).
To determine the optimum development temperature (Topt) and the maximum development rate associated with this temperature (μmax) (see [49]), a non-linear curve-fitting approach was adopted using TableCurve 2D (v. 5.01, SYSTAT Software Inc., 2002, San Jose, California, USA) (Additional files 5, 6, 7) (see [49]). Topt and μmax were determined from the equations for the best fit curve, which differed among stages and between species (Table 1, Additional files 8 and 9). To compare Topt and μmax of An. arabiensis to that of An. funestus, one replicate for each temperature treatment was selected at random (without replacement) to provide 25 separate curves for overall development rate for each species and for each life stage. The equations used to obtain Topt and μmax for overall development and development of each stage across all 25 replicates are presented in Additional file 10. Except in a few cases (pupal development rates) these equations all had r2 values above 0.90. The same equations for all 25 replicates were chosen to minimize discrepancies when comparing Topt and μmax between species. Topt and μmax were then compared, for overall development and for each life stage, between the species using t-tests (R v. 2.15.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Table 1 Developmental parameters for each life stage and overall, for Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus
Although development rate generally increases with increasing temperature up to the optimum [50, 51], high development rates are often accompanied by mortality and reduced population output [7, 50, 52]. In consequence, overall survival from egg to adult was recorded as the proportion of eggs that emerged as adults (expressed as a percentage). This % survival was recorded for all 25 replicates per temperature treatment. To assess differences in survival between the fluctuating temperature treatments and their constant mean (25°C), a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution of errors and logit link function was used (R v. 2.15.1). To illustrate the effect of temperature on survival of each species, mean percentage survival (± standard error) was plotted at each constant temperature and in a comparison between the two fluctuating temperatures and constant mean of 25°C.
Comparisons between the species examined here and the third major African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae s.s., were made using data previously gathered for this species [7]. Although this previous work was conducted under different experimental conditions [7], a comparison between development rates and survival of the three species under a range of temperatures is still warranted given that food limitation did not occur and that temperature effects are likely to be the most profound given experimental treatments in both studies.
Total development rate from egg to adult of An. arabiensis and An. funestus increased between 18°C and 32°C and between 18°C and 30°C, respectively, in a linear fashion (Figure 1). At 15°C and 35°C, no development from egg to adult occurred in either species (Figure 1). Although, experimentally, no development occurred at 15°C and 35°C, lower developmental thresholds for An. arabiensis and An. funestus were estimated as ~13°C and ~14°C, respectively (Table 1). Development rates of each stage, and from egg to adult across all temperatures differed significantly between species, with An. arabiensis showing consistently faster development rates than An. funestus (Table 2). Moreover, the significant temperature*species interaction indicated a steeper slope of the rate-temperature relationship in An. arabiensis (Figure 1) than in An. funestus, reflected in the lower SET value for the former species (Table 1). Species comparisons of μmax and Topt likewise revealed significantly higher Topt and μmax for overall development and for larval development in An. arabiensis than in An. funestus (Tables 1, 3), but no significant difference in Topt or μmax for pupal development, and only significantly different μmax for egg development (Table 3). Development rate of An. arabiensis at 25°C did not differ significantly from development rate at 15°C to 35°C, although development rate at 20°C to 30°C was significantly faster than both of these (Figure 2). In contrast, in An. funestus, fluctuating temperatures led to significantly slower development rates than at 25°C (Figure 2). For both species, Topt was higher for eggs and larvae than it was for pupae (Table 1).
Mean development rate and constant temperature. Mean development rate (days-1) per constant temperature (ranging from 15°C to 35°C) for Anopheles arabiensis (blue ♦), An. funestus (red ■) and An. gambiae (green ▲) (data for An. gambiae obtained from [7]). Lines linking data points are not fitted and are for reference only. 95% confidence intervals are shown for An. arabiensis and An. funestus, but are typically obscured by the data points. For the full range of temperatures, the development rate of each species is typically non-linear. For each species, there exists a linear part to this curve, which differs between species.
Table 2 Effects of species and temperature on development rates of each life stage and overall development
Table 3 Comparing optimum temperatures and development rates at these temperatures, between Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus
Development rate at constant and fluctuating temperatures. Development rate (days-1) of Anopheles arabiensis (left) and Anopheles funestus (right) at the two fluctuating temperature regimes and the constant mean of 25°C. Differences in lower case letters indicate significant differences in development rates (within each species) between the two fluctuating temperature regimes of 20 to 30°C and 15 to 35°C, and their constant mean of 25°C (ANOVA: An. arabiensis df=2, 72, F=25.5, P<0.0001; An. funestus df=2, 72, F=395.3, P<0.001). Development at 25°C was significantly faster than at fluctuating temperatures for An. funestus but did not differ markedly between treatments for An. arabiensis.
Survival (%) from egg to adult was highest at 32°C for An. arabiensis and at 25°C for An. funestus (Figure 3). Complete mortality was found at 15°C and 35°C for both An. arabiensis and An. funestus (Figure 3). In the case of An. arabiensis, only the 15°C to 35°C fluctuating temperature led to a significant decline in survival by comparison with the constant 25°C conditions (Figure 4), and then only by c. 10%. In contrast, in An. funestus survival was lower in both sets of fluctuating temperature conditions compared with the constant 25°C, and the reduction in survival was by at least half (Figure 4).
Mean survival at constant temperatures. Mean percentage survival per constant temperature for Anopheles arabiensis (blue), An. funestus (red) and An. gambiae (green) (data for An. gambiae obtained from [7]). Error bars are shown for An. arabiensis and An. funestus. Survival of An. gambiae is highest at the lower end of the temperature range, while survival of An. arabiensis is highest towards the upper end of this temperature scale. An. funestus displays lower survival at all temperatures when compared to the other two vector species. No development and hence, no survival occurred at 15°C and 35°C for An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while An. gambiae did not develop at 16°C and 34°C.
Mean survival at constant and fluctuating temperatures. Mean percentage survival for Anopheles arabiensis (left) and Anopheles funestus (right) between the two fluctuating temperature regimes and constant mean of 25°C. Differences in lower case letters indicate significant differences in survival between temperature treatments within each species (GLZ with binomial distribution and logit link: An. arabiensis df=2, 72, chi-squared=15.4, P<0.001; An. funestus df=2, 72, chi-squared=164.9, P<0.0001). Survival of An. arabiensis was only negatively affected at the most variable temperature treatment. Anopheles funestus experienced severely lowered survival at the two fluctuating temperature treatments when compared to the constant 25°C treatment.
Of the three major African malaria vector species, An. arabiensis had the fastest overall development rate over a wide range of temperatures. The faster rate by comparison with An. gambiae (illustrated in Figure 1) contrasts with that of at least two previous studies [29, 33]. The contrasting outcomes may reflect genotypic differences among the populations used that may have significant effects on a range of traits [53]. Alternatively, the An. gambiae study reared larvae at different densities and under different feeding regimes [7] than the present study which may have influenced the development response of this species to temperature. Nonetheless, both species showed temperature optima for development at c. 32°C, although the range of temperatures over which development rate is fastest is broader in An. gambiae (28-32°C, [7]), than it is in An. arabiensis (32°C). This difference in performance breadth is in keeping with a slightly greater niche width calculated for and generally wider habitat use in An. gambiae than An. arabiensis[53–55], though the significance of the M and S molecular forms of An. gambiae[56] in influencing these patterns is not clear. In comparison, An. funestus had a much longer development time than both of these species, with a similar optimum temperature for development, in keeping with its preference for cooler, more permanent and often shaded habitats [53–55].
Temperature also affected survival differently in the three species (see also [8, 30, 35, 57]). Peak survival was highest at 32°C in An. arabiensis, though survival rates were similar between 22°C and 32°C. In An. gambiae survival peaks at 24°C, and is fairly similar between 22°C and 28°C [30], dropping rapidly above 30°C. These differences in survival rate at different temperatures between An. gambiae and An. arabiensis[29] contrast strongly with the situation in An. funestus. A single fairly pronounced survival optimum occurred at 25°C, with substantial declines on either side of this temperature.
The presumably typical exposure of An. arabiensis to fluctuating temperatures, given that it tends to prefer smaller water bodies than does An. funestus[54, 55, 58] and the greater variability in temperature of smaller ponds [59, 60], appears to be reflected in the responses to fluctuating temperatures of development rate and survival in these species. In An. arabiensis, development rate either showed a small, though significant, or no significant response at all to the fluctuating temperatures, and survival declined only marginally (by about 10%) at the wider fluctuating temperature (15°C-35°C), which exposed individuals to temperatures close to their lethal limits [8]. In An. funestus, however, development rate declined significantly with fluctuating temperature (by as much as 30% at 15°C-35°C), as did survival (from 60% at 25°C to less than half that value at the fluctuating temperatures). The decline in development rate of An. funestus with fluctuating temperatures likely also accounts for the shorter development time recorded here than was found by [35] who estimated development times based on fluctuating field temperatures. What the response is of An. gambiae to fluctuating temperatures is not clear but mesocosm data suggest that fluctuating temperatures are unlikely to have a large effect [33], again acknowledging that differences among the M and S molecular forms require further exploration.
Overall, the differences found here among the species in their development rate-temperature relationships, optimum temperatures, and responses to fluctuating temperatures, are in keeping with what is known of the regional distributions and more local habitat preferences of the species (e.g. [53, 54, 59, 61]). Together they suggest that An. gambiae may be more of a thermal generalist than An. arabiensis, reflected also in the general biology of the species [53, 55], and perhaps as a consequence of substantial within-species genetic diversity [56]. Although further studies are required, it also appears the latter species may do best in environments that are too warm for the former. Such differential success under differing environmental conditions is well known in other insects (see [62]). Thus, the explanation for differences in the regional distributions of An. arabiensis and An. gambiae might plausibly be the way local interactions between temperature and water regimes, food availability, duration of breeding site availability, and the significance of what appears to be an asymmetric interaction between the two species [29], scale up to form the regional distribution.
What such an outcome implies is that mechanistic models, of the kind that can take both physiological parameters and the effects of other species into account (e.g. [4]) are likely to perform well for situations where interspecific interactions are dependent on the abiotic environment, a situation likely to be common under natural conditions [62]. In consequence, data such as those provided here would be useful to ensure that further value can be derived from more general models (e.g. [20]). In particular, they would enable substantial differences to be taken into account between species groups, such as the An. gambiae complex and An. funestus, which has slower development rates, shallower rate-temperature relationships, and rather narrow survival limits at 25°C in keeping with its preference for more permanent water bodies with emergent vegetation [54, 55]. Such differential assessments are significant especially because some regions in southern Africa, such as Mozambique, are dominated by An. funestus rather than by members of the An. gambiae complex [63].
Our findings of significant physiological differences among the three major African vectors of P. falciparum malaria (see also [8]), also have implications for understanding likely malaria disease burden under changing environments. Most simplistically, it appears that increasing mean temperatures are likely to favour all three species. However, increases in temperature variability and high temperature extremes (as are taking place and are forecast to continue, see [17, 38–40]) are likely to have more profound impacts on An. funestus and An. gambiae than on An. arabiensis. Indeed, given the apparent negative competitive effects of An. gambiae on An. arabiensis at lower temperatures [29, 33], increasing mean temperatures and rising extremes may well further favour the latter. In consequence, simple projections based on environmental niche modelling are unlikely to reflect the vector or disease burden situation into the future because they largely neglect changing species interactions and relative abundances, and the implications thereof given among-species differences in feeding biology (see e.g. [54, 63]). Mechanistic models provide a useful way to incorporate such complexity (e.g. [4]), but their outcomes will also have to be informed by the influence of changing local conditions, including habitat change, disease prevention interventions, and social responses to both [13, 55, 58, 64, 65], and the effects of fluctuating temperatures on vector competence [19].
Fluctuating temperatures affect two of Africa's three most prolific malaria vectors differentially, which suggests that the likely impacts of temperature changes associated with climate change will have different impacts on these vector populations. Because of these inherent differences between species, studies should focus on each individual species, so that data used to forecast potential future distributions of malaria vectors in mechanistic models for instance, is as accurate and applicable as possible.
World Health Organisation: World Malaria Report. 2012, Geneva, Switzerland
Smith DL, McKenzie FE, Snow RW, Hay SI: Revisiting the basic reproductive number for malaria and its implications for malaria control. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5: e42-10.1371/journal.pbio.0050042.
Patz JA, Graczyk TK, Geller N, Vittor AY: Effects of environmental temperature on emerging parasitic diseases. Int J Parasitol. 2000, 30: 1395-1405. 10.1016/S0020-7519(00)00141-7.
Parham PE, Pople D, Christiansen-Jucht C, Lindsay S, Hinsley W, Michael E: Modeling the role of environmental variables on the population dynamics of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. Malaria J. 2012, 11: 271-10.1186/1475-2875-11-271.
Small J, Goetz SJ, Hay SI: Climatic suitability for malaria transmission in Africa, 1911–1995. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 15341-15345. 10.1073/pnas.2236969100.
Love GJ, Whelchel JG: Lethal effects of high temperatures on the immature stages of Anopheles quadrimaculatus. Ecology. 1957, 38: 570-576. 10.2307/1943121.
Bayoh MN, Lindsay SW: Effect of temperature on the development of the aquatic stages of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull Ent Res. 2003, 93: 375-381.
Lyons CL, Coetzee M, Terblanche JS, Chown SL: Thermal limits of wild and laboratory strains of two African malaria vector species, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus. Malaria J. 2012, 11: 226-10.1186/1475-2875-11-226.
Hoffmann AA: Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications. J Exp Biol. 2010, 213: 870-880. 10.1242/jeb.037630.
Worner SP: Performance of phenological models under variable temperature regimes: consequences of the Kaufmann or rate summation effect. Environ Entomol. 1992, 21: 689-699.
Tanser FC, Sharp B, le Sueur D: Potential effects of climate change on malaria transmission in Africa. Lancet. 2003, 362: 1792-1798. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14898-2.
Tonnang HEZ, Kangalawe RYM, Yanda PZ: Predicting and mapping malaria under climate change scenarios: the potential redistribution of malaria vectors in Africa. Malaria J. 2010, 9: 111-10.1186/1475-2875-9-111.
Rogers DJ, Randolph SE: The global spread of malaria in a future, warmer world. Science. 2000, 289: 1763-1766.
Thomas C: Malaria: a changed climate in Africa?. Nature. 2004, 427: 690-691.
Reiter P, Thomas CJ, Atkinson PM, Hay SI, Randolph SE, Rogers DJ, Shanks GD, Snow RW, Spielman A: Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004, 4: 323-324. 10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01038-2.
PubMed Central Article Google Scholar
Thomas CJ, Davies G, Dunn CE: Mixed picture for changes in stable malaria distribution with future climate change in Africa. Trends Parasitol. 2004, 20: 216-220. 10.1016/j.pt.2004.03.001.
Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R: Perception of climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012, 109: E2415-E2423. 10.1073/pnas.1205276109.
Pascual M, Dobson AP, Bouma MJ: Underestimating malaria risk under variable temperatures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009, 106: 13645-13646. 10.1073/pnas.0906909106.
Paaijmans KP, Read AF, Thomas MB: Understanding the link between malaria risk and climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009, 106 (a): 13844-13849.
Mordecai EA, Paaijmans KP, Johnson LR, Balzer C, Ben-Horin T, Moor E: McNally A, Pawar S. 2012, Ryan SJ, Smith TC, Lafferty KD: Optimal temperature for malaria transmission is lower than previously predicted. Ecol Lett, 10.1111/ele.12015.
Moffett A, Shackelford N, Sarkar S: Malaria in Africa: vector species' niche models and relative risk maps. PLoS ONE. 2007, 2: e824-10.1371/journal.pone.0000824.
Reid H, Haque U, Clements ACA, Tatem AJ, Vallely A, Masud Ahmed S, Islam A, Haque R: Mapping malaria risk in Bangladesh using Bayesian geostatistical models. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010, 84: 861-867.
Martens WJM, Jetten TH, Focks DA: Sensitivity of malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue to global warming. Climatic Change. 1997, 35: 145-156. 10.1023/A:1005365413932.
Kearney M, Porter WP, Williams C, Ritchie S, Hoffmann AA: Integrating biophysical models and evolutionary theory to predict climatic impacts on species' ranges: the dengue mosquito Aedes aegypti in Australia. Funct Ecol. 2009, 23: 528-538. 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01538.x.
Williams CR, Bader CA, Kearney MR, Ritchie SA, Russell RC: The extinction of dengue through natural vulnerability of its vectors. PLoS Neglect Trop D. 2010, 4: e922-10.1371/journal.pntd.0000922.
Kearney M, Porter W: Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species' ranges. Ecol Lett. 2009, 12: 334-350. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01277.x.
Buckley LB, Urban MC, Angilletta MJ, Crozier LG, Rissler LJ, Sears MW: Can mechanism inform species' distribution models?. Ecol Lett. 2010, 13: 1041-1054.
Chown SL, Hoffmann AA, Kristensen TN, Angilletta MJ, Stenseth NC, Pertoldi C: Adapting to climate change: a perspective from evolutionary physiology. Climate Res. 2010, 43: 3-15. 10.3354/cr00879.
Kirby MJ, Lindsay SW: Effect of temperature and inter-specific competition on the development and survival of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto and An. arabiensis larvae. Acta Trop. 2009, 109: 118-123. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.09.025.
Bayoh MN, Lindsay SW: Temperature-related duration of aquatic stages of the Afrotropical malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae in the laboratory. Med Vet Entomol. 2004, 18: 174-179. 10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00495.x.
Rocca KAC, Gray EM, Costantini C, Besansky NJ: 2La chromosomal inversion enhances thermal tolerance of Anopheles gambiae larvae. Malaria J. 2009, 8: 147-10.1186/1475-2875-8-147.
Kirby MJ, Lindsay SW: Responses of adult mosquitoes of two sibling species, Anopheles arabiensis and An. gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae), to high temperatures. Bull Ent Res. 2004, 94: 441-448.
Paaijmans KP, Huijben S, Githeko AK, Takken W: Competitive interactions between larvae of the malaria mosquitoes Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles gambiae under semi-field conditions in western Kenya. Acta Trop. 2009, 109 (b): 124-130.
Huffaker CB: The temperature relations of the immature stages of the malarial mosquito Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, with a comparison of the developmental power of constant and variable temperatures in insect metabolism. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1944, 37: 1-27.
Jepson WF, Moutia A, Courtis C: The malaria problem in Mauritius: the bionomics of Mauritian anophelines. Bull Ent Res. 1947, 38: 177-208. 10.1017/S0007485300030273.
Hagstrum DW, Milliken GA: Modelling differences in insect developmental times between constant and fluctuating temperatures. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1991, 84: 369-379.
Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ: Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature. 2000, 408: 184-187. 10.1038/35041539.
New M, Hewitson B, Stephenson DB, Tsiga A, Kruger A, Manhique A, Gomez B, Coelho CAS, Masisi DN, Kululanga E, Mbambalala E, Adesina F, Saleh H, Kanyanga J, Adosi J, Bulane L, Fortunata L, Mdoka ML, Lajoie R: Evidence of trends in daily climate extremes over southern and west Africa. J Geophys Res. 2006, 111: 10.1029/2005JD006289. D14102
Sanderson MG, Hemming DL, Betts RA: Regional temperature and precipitation changes under high-end (≥ 4°C) global warming. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2011, 369: 85-98. 10.1098/rsta.2010.0283.
Kruger AC, Sekele SS: Trends in extreme temperature indices in South Africa: 1962–2009. Int J Climatol. 2012, 10.1002/joc.3455.
Hunt RH, Brooke BD, Pillay C, Koekemoer LL, Coetzee M: Laboratory selection for and characteristics of pyrethroid resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles funestus. Med Vet Entomol. 2005, 19: 271-275. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2005.00574.x.
Clements AN: The Physiology of Mosquitoes. 1963, New York: The MacMillan Company
Kaiser ML, Koekemoer LL, Coetzee M, Hunt RH, Brooke BD: Staggered larval time-to-hatch and insecticide resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae S form. Malaria J. 2010, 9: 360-10.1186/1475-2875-9-360.
Honĕk A, Kocourek F: Temperature and development time in insects: a general relationship between thermal constants. Zool Jahrb Allg Zool. 1990, 117: 401-439.
Honĕk A: Geographical variation in thermal requirements for insect development. Eur J Entomol. 1996, 93: 303-312.
Trudgill DL, Honĕk A, Li D, van Straalen NM: Thermal time – concepts and utility. Ann Appl Biol. 2005, 146: 1-4. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2005.04088.x.
Quinn GP, Keough MJ: Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. 2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Faraway JJ: Linear Models with R. 2005, London: Chapman and Hall
Janion C, Leinaas HP, Terblanche JS, Chown SL: Trait means and reaction norms: the consequences of climate change/invasion interactions at the organism level. Evol Ecol. 2010, 24: 1365-1380. 10.1007/s10682-010-9405-2.
Clements AN: The Biology of Mosquitoes: Development, Nutrition and Reproduction. 2000, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing
Chown SL, Nicolson SW: Insect Physiological Ecology: Mechanisms and Patterns. 2004, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Régnière J, Powell J, Bentz B, Nealis V: Effects of temperature on development, survival and reproduction of insects: experimental design, data analysis and modelling. J Insect Physiol. 2012, 58: 634-647. 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.01.010.
Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Coetzee M, Mbogo CM, Hemingway J, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Kabaria CW, Okara RM, Van Boeckel T, Godfray HCJ, Harbach RE, Hay SI: The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in Africa, Europe and the Middle East: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 117-10.1186/1756-3305-3-117.
Gillies MT, Coetzee M: A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara (Afrotropical Region). 1987, Johannesburg: Publications of the South African Institute of Medical Research
Yasuoka J, Levins R: Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on anopheline ecology and malaria epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 76: 450-460.
Lehmann T, Licht M, Elissa N, Maega BTA, Chimumbwa JM, Watsenga FT, Wondji CS, Simard F, Hawley WA: Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. J Hered. 2003, 94: 133-147. 10.1093/jhered/esg024.
Lyimo EO, Takken W, Koella JC: Effect of rearing temperature and larval density on larval survival, age at pupation and adult size of Anopheles gambiae. Entomol Exp Appl. 1992, 63: 265-271. 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1992.tb01583.x.
Minakawa N, Munga S, Atieli F, Mushinzimana E, Zhou G, Githeko AK, Yan G: Spatial distribution of anopheline larval habitats in western Kenyan highlands: effects of land cover types and topography. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005, 73: 157-165.
Haddow AJ: Measurements of temperature and light in artificial ponds with reference to the larval habitat of Anophele s (Myzomyia) gambiae Giles, and A. (M.) funestus Giles. Bull Ent Res. 1943, 34: 89-93. 10.1017/S0007485300023609.
Paaijmans KP, Jacobs AFG, Takken W, Heusinkveld BG, Githeko AK, Dicke M, Holtslag AAM: Observations and model estimates of diurnal water temperature dynamics in mosquito breeding sites in western Kenya. Hydrol Process. 2008, 22: 4789-4801. 10.1002/hyp.7099.
Lindsay SW, Parson L, Thomas CJ: Mapping the ranges and relative abundance of the two principal African malaria vectors, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto and An. arabiensis, using climate data. Proc R Soc B. 1998, 265: 847-854. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0369.
Chown SL, Terblanche JS: Physiological diversity in insects: ecological and evolutionary contexts. Adv Insect Physiol. 2007, 33: 50-152.
Kloke RG, Nhamahanga E, Hunt RH, Coetzee M: Vectorial status and insecticide resistance of Anopheles funestus from a sugar estate in southern Mozambique. Parasit Vectors. 2011, 4: 16-10.1186/1756-3305-4-16.
Omlin FX, Carlson JC, Ogbunugafor CB, Hassanali A: Anopheles gambiae exploits the treehole ecosystem in western Kenya: a new urban malaria risk?. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 77: 264-269.
Mutuku FM, Alaii JA, Bayoh MN, Gimnig JE, Vulule JM, Walker ED, Kabiru E, Hawley WA: Distribution, description, and local knowledge of larval habitats of Anopheles gambiae s.l. in a village in western Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006, 74: 44-53.
This study was supported by the National Research Foundation through the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, the DST-NRF Research Chair award to MC, and the Stellenbosch University Hope Project. Students and staff of the Vector Control Reference Unit (VCRU) in Johannesburg are thanked for assistance with colony maintenance and establishment. Colony maintenance was undertaken by the Vector Control Reference Unit and all permits for animal maintenance issued to them were valid for these trials (NHLS Animal Ethics Clearance Certificate #1993047). The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa
Candice L Lyons
Malaria Entomology Research Unit, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Candice L Lyons & Maureen Coetzee
School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia
Steven L Chown
Maureen Coetzee
Correspondence to Candice L Lyons.
CLL and SLC conceptualized the experimental design and study. CLL carried out all experiments. CLL, MC and SLC wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Results for normality and homogeneity of variance tests from Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively, for development rate at the constant temperature treatment of 25°C and the two fluctuating temperature treatments of 20°C to 30°C and 15°C to 35°C for
Additional file 1: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus.(XLSX 10 KB)
Average development time (days ± SD) for 50% of the population, for each life stage to the next and overall from egg to adult, for each species,
Additional file 2: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus and average % survival (± S.E.) at each of 11 temperature treatments. No development to the adult stage occurred at 15°C or 35°C for either species. (XLSX 11 KB)
Normal QQ residual plots for comparisons between life stages (eggs, larvae, pupae and total development) of the two species
Additional file 3: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus that meet model assumptions.(PDF 195 KB)
Fitted vs. residual plots of development rates of eggs, larvae, pupae and total development between the two species
Additional file 4: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus.(PDF 238 KB)
Rate-temperature relationship for overall development from egg to adult of
Additional file 5: Anopheles arabiensis. The best-fit equation and estimates are shown in the figure title (r2=0.977). (PDF 129 KB)
Additional file 6: Anopheles funestus. The best-fit equation and estimates are shown in the figure title (r2=0.999). (PDF 186 KB)
Non-linear curve fit for
Additional file 7: Anopheles gambiae (data from[7]) (r2=0.999). (PDF 95 KB)
Equations best describing the non-linear relationship between development rate of each stage and overall development from egg to adult, for
Additional file 8: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus (parameter values shown in Additional file 9).(XLSX 11 KB)
Parameter estimates for non-linear curve fits for development rate from one stage to the next and from egg to adult (total) for
Additional file 9: Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus (equations in Additional file 8).(XLSX 10 KB)
Equations used for comparisons between T
Additional file 10: opt and μ max of Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus obtained from 25 separate non-linear curves for overall development, and development of each stage.(XLSX 10 KB)
Lyons, C.L., Coetzee, M. & Chown, S.L. Stable and fluctuating temperature effects on the development rate and survival of two malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus. Parasites Vectors 6, 104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-104
Constant vs. fluctuating temperatures


Whatever you are celebrating we can help! Birthday party, Christening, Anniversary party, the list goes on!
With amazing chefs we offer a fantastic function menu for you and your guests and can help with your entertainment if you need us to!. Let us do all the hard work and all you need to worry about is having a great time!


Victoria has handed a $700 million, seven-year contract to the company that built the troubled and costly myki public transport ticketing system.
NTT Data has been given a renewed contract with stronger performance targets, while the company is also liable for any unexpected costs, which plagued the development of the original myki system.
Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan said the government would now investigate making it possible for passengers to tap on with their credit cards or smartphones.
She said the deal included stronger performance requirements that would ensure the company delivered better value for money.
Opposition spokesman David Hodgett said the government had thrown away a golden opportunity to deliver real improvements to the system.
"Only Daniel Andrews thinks it's reasonable to give the makers of myki another chance despite years of incompetence and failure," Mr Hodgett told reporters on Tuesday.


Now the whole world knows Runescape is coming to us. According to the information from the runescape gold sellers, it seems less and less players are buying rs 2007 gold or EOC gold, because of Runescape 3. and more details maybe will be find in rsgoldrich.com , here, you will get more discounts on this game.
Tt's understandable if new players might consider RuneScape literally too big to get into. So how do you circumvent this and continue to expand the population base? Why, you throw in a major update and rename the game to RuneScape 3, of course! Many of us liking this online game.
In a recent interview, Jagex CEO talked to Gamasutra about how this exact approach gives the game an all-new feel that is more likely to draw in new players who might otherwise overlook it. He said, "We could have called it RuneScape Next Age if we wanted to, and part of my thinking was, for people who haven't played this game in a year, it's going to be night and day. It's not a completely new game, but it's certainly a new experience." and only coming to rsgoldrich.com for more cheap runescape gold and rs gold!


text:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

using Orleans;

namespace Orleankka.TestKit
{
    public class ActorRefMock : ActorRef
    {
        public readonly List<RecordedMessage> Received = new List<RecordedMessage>();

        readonly List<IExpectation> expectations = new List<IExpectation>();

        public ActorRefMock(ActorPath path)
            : base(path)
        {}

        public CommandExpectation<TCommand> ExpectTell<TCommand>(Expression<Func<TCommand, bool>> match = null)
        {
            var expectation = new CommandExpectation<TCommand>(match ?? (_ => true));
            expectations.Add(expectation);
            return expectation;
        }

        public QueryExpectation<TQuery> ExpectAsk<TQuery>(Expression<Func<TQuery, bool>> match = null)
        {
            var expectation = new QueryExpectation<TQuery>(match ?? (_ => true));
            expectations.Add(expectation);
            return expectation;
        }

        public override Task Tell(object message)
        {
            var expectation = Match(message);
            var expected = expectation != null;

            Received.Add(new RecordedMessage(expected, message, typeof(DoNotExpectResult)));

            if (expected)
                expectation.Apply();

            return TaskDone.Done;
        }

        public override Task<TResult> Ask<TResult>(object message)
        {
            var expectation = Match(message);
            var expected = expectation != null;

            Received.Add(new RecordedMessage(expected, message, typeof(TResult)));

            return expected
                       ? Task.FromResult((TResult) expectation.Apply())
                       : Task.FromResult(default(TResult));
        }

        IExpectation Match(object message)
        {
            return expectations.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Match(message));
        }
    }

    public class RecordedMessage
    {
        public readonly bool Expected;
        public readonly object Message;
        public readonly Type Result;

        public RecordedMessage(bool expected, object message, Type result)
        {
            Expected = expected;
            Message = message;
            Result = result;
        }
    }

    public class DoNotExpectResult
    {}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Burness Genealogy and Family History
Robert Burns Family History
Scottish Branches
English Branches
Unconnected Branches
Robert Phelps1,2
#31121, b. circa 1848
Robert Phelps was born circa 1848 in Shoreditch, London, England.1,3 He married Mary Ann Burness, daughter of Thomas Edmund Burness and Harriet Maria Micci, on 23 October 1887 in St Peter's Church, Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England.1,2
Robert Phelps was enumerated in the census on 5 April 1891 in 65 Mintern Street, Hoxton Old Town, Shoreditch, London, England, as a lamplighter, age 42 with Mary A. Phelps, Robert Phelps and George Phelps in his household.3
Robert Phelps was enumerated in the census on 31 March 1901 in 243 Queen Square Buildings, Bethnal Green, London, England, as a window cleaner, age 51 with Mary A. Phelps, Robert Phelps, George Phelps and Mary A. Phelps in his household.4
Robert Phelps was enumerated in the census on 2 April 1911 in 243 Quinn's Square, Russia Lane, Bethnal Green, London, England, as a window cleaner, age 63, with Mary Ann Phelps, Robert Phelps and George Phelps in his household.5
Descendants of Jacob Burness
Children of Robert Phelps and Mary Ann Burness
Robert Thomas Phelps+3,4,5 b. 4 Sep 1888
George Phelps+3,4,5 b. 15 Feb 1890, d. 1975
John Phelps6 b. 21 Sep 1891, d. 1892
Mary Ann Phelps4 b. c 1894, d. 1911
Marriage Registration, General Register Office, transcribed by: Lawrence Ruxton Burness.
Ancestry.com, London Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1936.
1891 English Census, London.
Stephen Alan Bye, e-mail to John George Burness.
Samuel Roe1,2
#31123, b. 16 September 1867
Samuel Roe was born on 16 September 1867 in 3 Ashe Terrace, Hoxton, Middlesex, England.3 He was baptized on 27 October 1867 in St Luke, Chelsea, Middlesex, England.3 He married Alice Agnes Burness, daughter of John Burness and Sarah Tickner, on 5 October 1889 in St Stephen's Parish Church, Walworth, London, England.1,2
Samuel Roe was enumerated in the census on 5 April 1891 in 197 Albany Road, Camberwell, London, England, as a carpenter and joiner, age 23 with Alice A. Roe in his household.4
Descendants of James Burness
Child of Samuel Roe and Alice Agnes Burness
Charles John Roe5 b. 1891
Ancestry.com, London Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1920.
Alfred Victor Hayden1
#31125, b. circa 1865, d. 1920
Alfred Victor Hayden was born circa 1865 in Birmingham, Warwickshire, England.1,2 He married Mary Ann Burness, daughter of Henry Burness and Elizabeth Davis, on 15 December 1889 in Immanuel Parish Church, Birmingham, Warwickshire, England.1 He died in 1920 in Birmingham, Warwickshire, England.3
Alfred Haydon was enumerated in the census on 5 April 1891 in 16-4 Beach Street, Birmingham, Warwickshire, England, as a brass steel polisher, age 25 with Mary A. Haydon and Alfred J. Haydon in his household.2
Alfred Victor Hayden was enumerated in the census on 31 March 1901 in 2 Back, 111 Ruston Street, Birmingham, Warwickshire, England, as a steel polisher, age 35 with Mary Ann Hayden, Alfred John Hayden, George Harold Hayden, Arthur Victor Hayden and Lancelot Henry Hayden in his household.4
Alfred Victor Hayden was enumerated in the census on 2 April 1911 in 6 Court, 8 House, Holliday Street, Birmingham, Warwickshire, England, as a watchman, age 46, with Mary Ann Hayden, Alfred John Hayden, George Harold Hayden and Lancelot Henry Hayden in his household.5
Children of Alfred Victor Hayden and Mary Ann Burness
Alfred John Hayden2,4,5 b. c 1890
George Harold Hayden4,5 b. c 1892
Arthur Victor Hayden4 b. c 1895
Lancelot Henry Hayden4,5 b. c 1898
1891 English Census, Warwickshire.
General Register Office, England Death Index 1916-2007.
John Robert Robinson1,2
#31127, b. 1 August 1860
John Robert Robinson was born on 1 August 1860 in Little Camden Street, St Pancras, Middlesex, England.3 He married Elizabeth Burness, daughter of Thomas Edmund Burness and Harriet Maria Micci, on 5 October 1890 in St Thomas Parish Church, Camden Town, St Pancras, London, England.1,2
John Robinson was enumerated in the census on 31 March 1901 in 5 College Place, St Pancras, London, England, as a card board maker, age 40 with Elizabeth Robinson, Ellen Robinson, John Robinson and Alfred Robinson in his household.4
John Robert Robinson was enumerated in the census on 2 April 1911 in Elsimere, Green Lanes, Palmers Green, Edmonton, Middlesex, England, as a card and photographic mount maker, age 49, with Elizabeth Robinson, Ellen Robinson, John Robert Robinson, Walter Robinson and Elsie Robinson in his household.5
Children of John Robert Robinson and Elizabeth Burness
Ellen Robinson4,5 b. 11 Sep 1891
Harriet Robinson3 b. 15 Jun 1893, d. 1893
John Robert Robinson4,5 b. 11 Jun 1896
George Henry Robinson3 b. 15 Mar 1898, d. 1900
Alfred Robinson4 b. 11 May 1899, d. 1901
Walter Robinson5 b. 5 Jan 1903
Elsie Evelyn Robinson5 b. 29 Oct 1904
1911 English Census, Middlesex.
Samuel Irwin1
#31129, b. 19 April 1841, d. 1925
Samuel Irwin was born on 19 April 1841 in Long Lane, Bermondsey, London, England.2 He married Catherine Burness, daughter of John Fowler Burness and Jane Muckle, on 20 October 1890 in Bunyan Baptist Church, Queen Elizabeth Road, Kingston on Thames, Surrey, England.1 He died in 1925 in Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, England.3
Samuel Irwin was enumerated in the census on 5 April 1891 in 1 Stanley Terrace, Teddington, Middlesex, England, as a laundry man, age 49 with Catherine Irwin in his household.4
Samuel Irwin was enumerated in the census on 31 March 1901 in 42 Coleshill Road, Teddington, Middlesex, England, as a laundry man, age 59 with Catherine Irwin in his household.5
Samuel Irwin was enumerated in the census on 2 April 1911 in Grosvenor Road, Medstead, Hampshire, England, as a retired laundryman, age 69, with Catherine Irwin in his household.6
Descendants of Thomas Burness
1911 English Census, Hampshire.
The information on this website is a summary of my research to date, as well as information provided by other researchers. It is very much a work-in-progress, and I would greatly appreciate any additions, corrections, or other comments.
John Burness, 38 Elm Street, Apt 2912, Toronto, Ontario, M5G2K5, Canada
If email link below does not work, please use "john at burness dot ca"
Email: John Burness
Site updated on 8 January 2023; 18,934 people

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home News Sir David Attenborough 'Thrilled' After Receiving the Covid-19 Vaccine
Sir David Attenborough 'Thrilled' After Receiving the Covid-19 Vaccine
Tony Winterburn
Sir David Attenborough 'Thrilled' After Receiving the Covid-19 Vaccine. image: Pixabay
Sir David Attenborough 'Thrilled' After Receiving the Covid-19 Vaccine.
Sir David Attenborough has received the Covid-19 vaccine, just days after the Queen, who is the same age, and Prince Philip received theirs. England's national treasure who, at 94, falls into the second priority group for the jab, has been vaccinated, a representative for Attenborough confirmed to the British media.
Asked last month if he'd consider using his fame to try to jump the queue, the broadcaster joked: "At 94, I think I'm entitled". Sir David previously admitted that the prospect of having jab made him a little squeamish but added: "I'm sufficient of a scientist still, I hope, to realise this is the thing to do."
Speaking about the effects of the pandemic, he said: "The virus has made us feel we are more vulnerable and vulnerable to what is happening to the world. It has drawn attention to the fact we aren't as omnipotent and all-controlling as we think we are."
Earlier this week, Sir David revealed that he won't be returning to Instagram, after leaving the platform in November. Speaking on BBC Radio 1, he said: "I've got enough problems with the post!"
In September last year, the star broke Jennifer Aniston's previous record for the shortest time to reach a million followers, hitting the milestone in just four hours and 44 minutes. "I was persuaded … to do a message about conservation," Sir David told Radio 1's Greg James. "So for a limited period of time I did contribute to Instagram, but I'm off now. And I don't intend to go back."
Thank you for taking the time to read this news article "Sir David Attenborough 'Thrilled' After Receiving the Covid-19 Vaccine ". For more UK daily news, Spanish daily news and Global news stories, visit the Euro Weekly News home page.
Previous articleAge Concern Mallorca latest update concerning the State of Alarm
Next articleUrgent Blood Donation Appeal for Andalucia


text:
In Memoriam | Fall 2014
Notices sorted by graduation date.
Nita J. Giroux (Educ '80) of Waynesboro, Va., died June 5, 2014. She taught physical education in Charlottesville and Albemarle County and later retired from UVA Children's Hospital. She was a giving person with a happy heart. Survivors include two sisters, five nieces and nephews, and 13 great-nieces and nephews.
Barbara M. Bosma Garlock (Col '82, Law '88 L/M) of Cary, N.C., died June 23, 2013. A pastoral counselor, health care lawyer and emergency assistance specialist, she began her career as a clerk for former judge Charles Becton at the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Ms. Garlock went on to write successful legislation on health information privacy, was named a Top 10 Young Lawyer in North Carolina, served as president of the health law section of the North Carolina Bar Association and received the Martindale-Hubbell distinction for ethics. More recently, she began the Bread for Our Neighbors Summit and volunteered with the friends program of the North Carolina Bar and as the Wake County Schools character education coordinator. Ms. Garlock served on regional boards for Women NC, Triangle Family Services, the American Cancer Society and a number of other organizations. She also volunteered as a docent for the North Carolina Museum of Art and enjoyed walking the Hemlock Bluffs Nature Preserve. Ms. Garlock loved poetry, reading, traveling, listening to music and spending time with her husband and children. Survivors include her husband, Deo Garlock (Col '82), whom she met at the University, and their two children; her mother; her father and stepmother; and six siblings.
Arthur J. Simpson Jr. (Law '82 L/M) of Oradell, N.J., died May 9, 2014. He served in the U.S. armed forces for a total of 36 years, first in the U.S. Army during World War II and the Korean War, and later in the U.S. Army Reserve, retiring with the rank of colonel. Judge Simpson served as assignment judge for Bergen, Camden and Gloucester counties and as acting administrative director of the New Jersey Courts before retiring as judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. He also served as of counsel to the law firm of Winne Banta Hetherington and Basralian. Survivors include his wife, two daughters, a son and six grandchildren.
Daniel G. Knepper (Com '83) of Woodstock, Va., died June 10, 2014. He was a senior business analyst for Shenandoah Telecommunications Corp. (Shentel) in Edinburgh, Va. Previously, Mr. Knepper worked for IBM Corp. in Endicott, N.Y., and for Siemens Co. in Cary, N.C. Survivors include a son, a daughter and a brother.
Allyson LePeter McCarron (Col '86) of Mechanicsville, Va., died Jan. 17, 2014. At the University, she was a member of Sigma Sigma Sigma sorority. She was an attorney who specialized in real estate and land use law. She enjoyed flower gardening, reading and taking walks on the beach. Survivors include her parents; two daughters; and two brothers, including Greg LePeter (Col '93 L/M).
Stanley Parness (Law '86) of the Bronx, N.Y., died July 8, 2014. At the University, he participated in the Master of Laws program along with a number of other appellate judges from across the United States. He was a former presiding judge of the First Judicial Department Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, where he served for 18 years before retiring in 2001. He also presided for 15 years over all tax certiorari and condemnation cases in New York County. Justice Parness ruled in a number of notable cases, including a 1991 ruling involving One New York Plaza, where he determined that owners of commercial buildings containing asbestos were eligible for refunds and reductions in their tax assessments. He upheld the condemnation of many midtown properties for private development in the Matter of New York Urban Development Corp. case in 1998; his ruling laid the groundwork for the redevelopment of Times Square, one of the largest public commercial urban renewal projects in the state. After retiring from the bench, he was of counsel to Stroock & Stroock & Lavan for 13 years, advising on tax certiorari matters. He was past president of the Supreme Court Justices Association of the City of New York and served on the character and fitness committee of the Appellate Division, First Department, and on the court system's advisory committee on judicial ethics. He also taught real estate law at New York University. Justice Parness loved people. An accomplished attorney and judge, he was a loyal friend and mentor to his colleagues. He had a terrific sense of humor and enjoyed doing the New York Times crossword, especially on Sundays. Survivors include his wife and a brother.
Amy Elizabeth Wellborn Grier (Col '88 L/M) of Greenbelt, Md., died May 21, 2014. At the University, she was a member of Alpha Phi sorority. Ms. Grier was a social worker who specialized in and advocated for the treatment of attachment disorder. A compassionate, funny and wise woman, she taught many clients to love and parent children with exceptional needs. She enjoyed books and loved to read with her daughters; she was especially fond of the Harry Potter series. Ms. Grier sang, often at family weddings, and played the piano and flute. She also loved to garden, and her favorite flower was the bleeding heart. Survivors include her husband and their two daughters, her mother, a sister and a brother.
Submit a Notice
In Memoriam at Virginia Magazine
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4314
email: alumnews@virginia.edu
Everyone Plays
Man-to-man coverage of the team
How defeat drove a team to destiny.
Decoding Honor
What 99 years of never-before compiled data reveal about the UVA Honor System.


After applications are processed a control number is assigned to you. Depending on the programs that you have applied you will receive a letter(s) confirming your placement on the waiting list along with your control number(s). You will need the control numbers to find your placement on the waiting list.
For our applicants safety, the Shrewsbury Housing Authority strictly adheres to Federal and State confidentiality laws. Therefore, we cannot give any information over the telephone regarding your placement of the waiting list(s). If you lost your control number(s) you must come in the office with proper government issued photo identification, and we will be happy to assist you with obtaining your control number(s).


This summer, I had an obsession with seed saving. It all started with a friend and former student of mine. She is a continual inspiration to me. She puts things into action in unique and meaningful ways, things that most people only give lip service to. I have witnessed her deep concern over social and environmental issues. I have had the honor to watch her turn her concerns into tangible actions that make a very real difference. They make a difference in the bigger picture; they make a difference to her community, to our town, to my family. In January 2013, she helped start a seed library in our town called the Five Valleys Seed Library. Anyone can go to our public library (where it is housed) and pick up a myriad of seeds, for free.
Promote seed saving of successful food, ornamental, medicinal, and native plants in your bioregion.
Provide seeds through trade, sale, and free exchange to new and experienced local gardeners, small farmers, and educators at no-to-low cost.
Propagate heirloom and heritage seeds for local use.
Cooperate with existing organizations and systems involved with local food production.
Educate people about seeds, community resiliency and sustainability.
I was in from the beginning. I shared medicinal plant seeds from my own and my herb school gardens. My friend recently told me that our seed library is unique in the variety and abundance of medicinal seeds we offer. I am proud to be a small part of that. This year I have been inspired. My garage is stacked with egg cartons, each filled with seeds from a different type of medicinal plant. Examples are valerian, boneset, hyssop, motherwort, astragalus, wood betony, catnip, marshmallow, black cohosh, fireweed, California poppy and the list goes on. I have purposely chosen mostly easily grown medicinals in hopes that people will have success and come back for more.
Part of this obsession, for me personally, has to do with my experience with the FDA. Several years ago I owned a tincture company with my husband, herbalist John Goicovich. We had been making herbal extracts, firstly for other companies and then for our own business, for well over 25 years and had served our town and bioregion with tinctures that we had made with our own hands. We were proud of our formulas and felt profoundly rewarded by the many customers and clients who used our herbs and shared their healing stories with us. We had visits from the FDA over the years and always passed their inspections with flying colors. Then came the FDA's new Good Manufacturing Procedures for Dietary Supplements. In our opinion, they were somewhat excessive, similar to the way small farmers are hurt from regulations while huge corporate farms thrive. With mixed feelings, we stopped manufacturing and eventually sold our retail store.
The good news is this experience gave us a renewed passion to pass on our knowledge. The FDA might require us to jump through endless hoops to manufacture herbal products, but they have nothing to do with all of us making our own personal medicine or growing herbs in our own gardens. They can't stop us from passing on herbal wisdom to others. Our passion for empowering individuals and clients had always been at the core of our work, but this experience freed us, in a way, to pursue herbalism from another angle. We had always taught students and had developed longer and more in-depth herb programs over time. It was time to go all in, and in 2013 we started Green Path Herb School to train professional herbalists. How does this fit in with seeds, you might ask? I want every person who wants, to have access to herbs. I want my family, my garden, and my school to be a small part of the herbal revolution that I see on the horizon. Community herbal medicine, for all, and the knowledge of how to use it! That is my dream.
Planting a seed is powerful medicine.
Elaine Sheff has been studying medicinal plants since 1987. A Clinical Herbalist, she is a graduate of both the Rocky Mountain Center for Botanical Studies and the Southwest School of Botanical Medicine. Elaine is a certified instructor of Fertility Awareness and Natural Family Planning, a safe, effective birth control method used to avoid or achieve pregnancy. She has a long-standing clinical practice providing herbal consultations for individuals with health concerns. Elaine is a bestselling author and teaches herb classes throughout the United States. She is the co-founder of Meadowsweet Herbs and the co-director of Green Path Herb School in Missoula, Montana. You can often find Elaine in her garden, spending time with her amazing family, or cooking gluten free.
← Plants Need Probiotics Too!
Elaine, I think you should write a paragraph like that on each seed packet. That was beautiful, loving, and very powerful. Brought tears to my eyes.
Thanks so much, Jodi! Glad you enjoyed the article.
Wonderful, Elaine! The seed library is such a great resource! I too have been saving seeds this year (for the first time)! Thanks for all you have shared. Your knowledge is a seed in itself!


Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy that focuses on how thoughts, beliefs and attitudes affect a person's feeling and behaviour. CBT techniques vary depending on a client's issues.
Coaching is based on a professional relationship between client and coach, aimed at supporting a client's wishes for learning and growth.
Existential therapy focuses on free will, self-determination, and the search for meaning, often centred on the client rather than the symptoms. This approach emphasizes the client's capacity to make rational choices and to develop to their maximum potential.
Humanistic Integrative Counselling is an approach that systematically considers the whole person – mind, body and spirit.
Strengths-based approaches value the capacity, skills, knowledge, connections and potential in individuals and communities to aid recovery and empowerment.
SFBT asks clients to set concrete goals and to draw upon strengths in their lives that can help bring about the desired change for a preferred future. Goal-setting strategies such as the SMART (Specific Goal, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely) and GROW (Goal, Current Reality, Options, Will) models are used to help clients meet their objectives successfully.
Care that understands, recognizes and responds to the effects of all types of trauma.
Experiencing marital separation and divorce is challenging for everyone involved. While these situations bring about change, transition, loss, emotion, adjustments, they can also create personal growth and resilience. That feeling of being in a dark tunnel can make you feel as if you're all alone. Finding ways to cope, manage, re-define, build resources and care for the children is paramount.
The important thing to know is that you are not alone.
Give parents information and guidance to be able to help their children navigate the process.
Help parents create a parenting plan to meet their children's needs.
Use my expertise as a licensed mental health professional with experience in issues related to separation, divorce and re-marriage.
Help one or both members of a divorcing couple deal with emotional and psychological challenges related to their situation.
ADHD (attention deficit disorder) hyperactive or non-hyperactive for youth and adults.
Ageing – managing significant transitions with wisdom and optimism.
Anxiety – gaining the information and knowledge to develop skills and the tools to effectively manage anxiety.
Career Exploration – including an interest inventory.
Education – developing skills to manage more efficiently in school, college, or university.
Emotion – learning how to manage anxiety, sadness, anger, shame.
Employment - working on career aspiration or meeting performance expectations.
Grief and Loss – working with the five stages; denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Learning Challenges – as a learning specialist, I can provide the necessary support for children and parents when learning issues are preventing student success.
Life Transitions – ageing, child-bearing, children leaving home, elder care.
Parenting – developing the skills and tools to foster respect and harmony.
Self-Esteem and/or Social Issues – exploring core beliefs to contribute to a sense of well -being, strength and self-compassion.
Spiritual Issues – exploring meaning and purpose, including integrity, higher purpose and core self.
Stress – examining holistic health, self-care, and self-compassion.
Women's Issues – exploring independence, employment, relationships, hormones, conflict, emotion and learning kind ways to self-manage emotion.
Learning how to effectively manage anxiety.
Building positive relationships and managing natural "ups and downs".
Adopting new strategies for achieving more success in school.
Managing mental or physical health challenges.
Yes, you can become more resilient.


text:
A Punishment of Weeks, Not Years
Dave · September 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm · Filed Under Mariners
If you haven't yet, go read Derek's fine (but depressing) piece from this morning. Then, before jumping out the window, come back and read this.
There's a sentiment, strong among many fans, that the Mariners organization is going to be completely terrible until Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong are no longer in charge. They have been at the helm while the ship has run aground, and despite the massive failure of the franchise during the last five years, there are few outward signs that they have learned, well, anything. Their public quotes are still filled with cliches that have little basis in reality, and there's no disputing the fact that the organization is about 20 years behind most of baseball in terms of evaluating talent and building a roster. When a business falls so far behind it's competitors, it is always the bosses fault. There is no argument – they have done a bad job of managing this baseball franchise.
However, to go from that understanding to the doomsday scenario that Derek laid out, you have to make a few assumptions that simply can't be supported by facts.
Assumption #1: They will exert their power over the new General Manager to make baseball decisions they agree with and withhold that GM's ability to renovate the baseball operations department.
What actual evidence do we have of the ownership making unilateral baseball decisions in the last, say, 10 years? The Johjima extension, certainly. Nixing the Washburn trade. And… that's about it. So we have an extension for a Japanese player (which I'll get to in a second) and the overruling of an interim GM. But leaving out the specifics of the deal for a second, why are we so upset about Pelekoudas not being given full authority to do whatever he wanted at the trade deadline? How would our opinions of their actions be different if it was Beltre he was trying to dump instead of Washburn? Would we then hail Armstrong and Lincoln as wise enough to see through the foolishness of letting a temporary employee make decisions that would affect the franchise in 2009 and beyond?
Is it a sign that Lincoln and Armstrong don't know how to evaluate pitching? Yea, probably. Is it a sign that they're going to tell the next GM who he can and can't trade? Unequivocally not. You cannot assume that their actions in overruling an interim GM will be the operating procedure for how they will act with a permanent GM when there is massive historical evidence to the contrary.
When Pat Gillick was GM, his personal theories on baseball were implemented throughout the organization – blow off draft picks, ignore the farm system, don't sign any contracts longer than three years, spread the money around the entire roster, throw a ton of money at relief pitchers, and trust veterans implicitly while assuming that everyone under 25 is out to steal your wallet.
When Bill Bavasi was GM, his personal theories on baseball were implemented through the organization – spend more money scouting the draft than any other team in baseball, build through the farm system, take big risks with long term contracts in free agency, build a bullpen on the cheap, rush every single talented kid through the minor leagues as fast as possible, and trust implicitly in tools over performance with young kids and track records with veterans.
Bavasi and Gillick are remarkably different, with huge disagreements in how to run a franchise, and both of them were able to implement their ideas completely throughout the organization. The team went from widly risk averse under Gillick to not even bothering to measure risk under Bavasi. They went from holding every prospect in the world in Triple-A for years to carrying Brandon Morrow as a reliever after three innings of minor league experience. They went from an offense of guys who worked the count to the hackingest bunch of hacks who ever hacked.
Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong were in charge of two very different regimes, and both Gillick and Bavasi managed to build their rosters in their own image. How do we reconcile that fact with this idea that they're maniacal micro-managers who assert their own will over every player transaction? You can't.
Yes, the Johjima extension happened entirely at an ownership level, and the baseball operations team had basically nothing to do with that decision. But that's pretty much always been true of how the Japanese player/Mariner team relationship has worked, and to be honest, it's been a huge boon to the franchise. The original negotiations to sign Kenji as a free agent in 2006 went something like this: "Bill, I want to sign right now. Please give me a contract for whatever you deem fair. Who has a pen?" The rumors about what went on with Ichiro's posting fee are hilariously legendary, and there was clearly a significant ownership involvement in his decision to re-sign for a below market deal last summer as well.
Even going back to the Sasaki contracts, the Mariners have come out way, way ahead in terms of return on investment of Japanese players. Yes, the Johjima extension is a debacle and probably one the ownership wishes they could have back, but can we really look at the sum of the Japanese ownership meddling and conclude that it's a huge barrier to the team winning? To the contrary, it'd be easier to argue that the ownership's history of attracting quality Japanese players to sign for below market deals here has been one of the biggest assets this club has had in the last decade.
There just isn't the evidence there to support the idea that Lincoln and Armstrong will assert their opinions on roster transactions over the will of the next permanent General Manager. There is evidence that the GM won't have a very strong say when it comes to the Japanese players on his team, but you can't really make a case that it's a franchise crippling problem.
Assumption #2: No good General Manager candidates are going to want to work in a situation where they don't have total autonomy.
Billy Beane is basically the only GM in baseball with anything resembling total autonomy, and he has an ownership stake in the A's. Every other GM in baseball has restrictions on what they can and can't do, and in many cases, they are far more heavy handed than whatever the next GM will have to deal with here.
Theo Epstein has had so many personal conflicts with Larry Lucchino in Boston that he's already quit once and had to be lured back with contract promises to limit contact between the two.
Kevin Towers is the GM of the Padres, but everywhere he turns, there's a former GM standing around – his boss, Sandy Alderson (whom he has an interesting relationship with) keeps hiring potential replacements for Towers and giving them positions of power and reporting lines that don't go through Towers.
The Rangers liked Jon Daniels so much, they made him one of the youngest GMs in baseball – then hired Nolan Ryan to look over his shoulder. The D'Backs have given Josh Byrnes a long term contract as a reward for his job in rebuilding the franchise quickly, then signed Eric Byrnes to a 3 year, $30 million deal that Byrnes wasn't in favor of. Walt Jocketty ended up leaving his post as GM of the Cardinals due to a division of power that came from ownership. Omar Minaya and Brian Cashman have two sets of demanding owners in NY that don't really need to be covered here, as I think everyone understands the zoo that is NYC. Kenny Williams and Jerry Reinsdorf have had an occasionally adversarial relationship in Chicago. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Besides Beane, there's basically no such thing as a GM with total autonomy. The guys who have worked their tails off to get a shot at a General Manager position are not going to pass on interviewing with the Mariners because of the ownership dynamics. This is a false worry – the M's will essentially be able to pick from a pool of extremely qualified candidates. If their next GM is a bad hire, it will be because they made a bad decision, not because they didn't have a good one to make.
Assumption #3: They're going to stop investing in the on field product.
Say whatever you want about the competence, arrogance, and greed of Mariner ownership, but you simply can't pretend that they've failed to properly fund the on field roster. The principle responsibility of ownership is to provide enough capital for a good GM to build a winning roster with, and the Mariners have had more than enough capital to build a winning team for each of the last 10 years. They're consistently among the league's top spenders, and during Bavasi's administration, they supplemented a high payroll with the highest scouting budget in the industry. The Mariners spend a lot of money on acquiring baseball players, and they have for a long time.
They haven't spent it well, obviously, but there's no reason to believe that the resources will cease to be provided if a GM is able to spend them more efficiently. Will payroll go down in 2009? Yea, I'm sure it will. And it probably should – with Bedard's labrum problem, the reality is it would take a perfect off-season to build a contender this winter, so they're probably not going to play in October next year. When you know that ahead of time, spending a lot of money on the major league payroll isn't the best use of resources.
But why should we assume that the ownership won't pony up enough money to find competent placeholders while the new GM develops his next winning team? The Rays were able to pick up Cliff Floyd, Eric Hinske, and Trever Miller for peanuts this winter, filling holes with solid role players because they could offer significant opportunities for playing time. You think free agents were clamoring to sign in Tampa, or that the Mariners aren't able to match their significant resources?
There's a huge gap between "the team will probably cut payroll next year" and "the team won't provide the next GM enough money to build a winning team". The former is almost certainly true, while the latter is almost certainly false.
The Mariners face a critical winter, no doubt. If they choose poorly, Derek's scenario below could certainly come true. It's a possibility that we can't ignore, but for those of you who want to treat it like inevitable fate, your assumptions simply don't stand on actual evidence. You can be afraid that the team will screw up this winter, hire a bad GM, and continue failed policies that will result in more losing seasons, but you can't pass it off as rigorous analysis of what will happen. Fear is not evidence.
The Mariners are hardly the most moribund franchise baseball. Tampa is riding the peak after a valley far deeper than anything we've been through. Pittsburgh abandoned their years of poor planning to hire a good GM and change the entire culture of their organization. If the Rays and Pirates can see the light and make the necessary changes, so can the Mariners. This doesn't mean that they will, but it does mean that if you're spouting the impossibility of success under the Lincoln/Armstrong regime, you're wrong.
24 Responses to "A Punishment of Weeks, Not Years"
Evan on September 22nd, 2008 1:10 pm
Since when is Dave the upbeat one?
Something's been bothering me since reading Derek's piece this morning, and you've just written is all down.
Sure, the decisions made by this team have been almost universally awful – and I mean horrifically bad – for the last year or more, but you're right about the structure that lead to those decisions.
The only real reason I can see to be somewhat less optimistic than your article might promote lies in something Derek said. Since is clear that Lincoln and Armstrong don't know anything about baseball, and despite their general failure to interfere in the operations of the team under the direction of their GM, they are still the guys who select the GM.
So, while I think you're correct that the team will likely be run largely as the new GM sees fit, I have something less than confidence that the new GM will be someone I want making those decisions.
TomG on September 22nd, 2008 1:12 pm
Heh, I posted nearly the same sentiments earlier in Derek's thread. Glad to see someone else keeping happy thoughts.
So, while I think you're correct that the team will likely be run largely as the new GM sees fit, I have something less than confidence that the new GM will be someone I want making those decisions.
I'd like to think that L/A are where they are today because they are relatively bright individuals who would be smart enough to learn from their mistakes. Or, I hope they would.
Dobbs on September 22nd, 2008 1:50 pm
I've had that hope for years while Bavasi has run the team into the ground and they continued to let him run the franchise.
Sure, blame Gillick for the short-comings in the minors, but for all that Bavasi did to fill the team with prospects, what exactly have we ended up with that we still want to keep?
Felix, Morrow…. and even how he handled Morrow was terrible.
I have a hard time crediting Bavasi with any positives during his tenure. Build a franchise through the minors but rely on experience at the major league level so that none of your prospects see the light of day. Where's the intelligence in that?
He had opportunities to trade guys on the down hill like Guardardo, and failed. He left draft picks on the table such as when Cameron left and he rode veterans with no talent 5 times longer than he should've while ignoring minimum salary guys with a track record that could've easily replaced them.
If Bavasi was this bad and still lasted so long, then faith in anything L/A do is gone.
Dave on September 22nd, 2008 1:54 pm
but for all that Bavasi did to fill the team with prospects, what exactly have we ended up with that we still want to keep?
Carlos Triunfel, Gregory Halman, Michael Saunders, Jeff Clement, Wladimir Balentien, Philippe Aumont, Juan Ramirez, Dennis Raben, Jharmidy DeJesus, Michael Pineda to name 10.
Seriously, you can't say Bavasi did a bad job of building the farm system and then ignore the farm system.
unkrusty on September 22nd, 2008 1:56 pm
But Dobbs, you miss the point of Dave's article, which was a refutation that L/A are meddlers and will not allow any GM to run the show. They clearly let Bavasi run the show, and clearly Bavasi screwed it up.
I was asking what he's left us with at the major league level…
I'm sure you could name 10 minor leaguers Gillick left us with in the minors at the time he left, but the point was (which is a point you harped on all the time) that we so rarely used our guys in the minors. (except in the bullpen)
Bloomquist, Lopez and Yuni are the only two position players in the past 5 years from our minors that have played a full season at the major league level.
Again, Gillick didn't help this at all, but Bavasi didn't seem to do any better about prospects turning into major leaguers because of his veterans > prospects approach of the team. If this weren't the case, Adam Jones would have 250 games under his belt by now.
I'm not saying this to refute Dave's point, simply TomG's optimism that L/A will learn from their mistakes because of their "intelligence" is either a joke or our best hope.
Perhaps both.
TomTuttle on September 22nd, 2008 2:23 pm
So who do we root for this team to hire as GM then?
A proven winner, a young-and-coming type like Chris Antonetti (who won't leave Cleveland), or just anyone that has a decent baseball IQ?
I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm not optimistic about what this team's choice will be.
Heck, the fact that there are rumors out there that Randy Smith (former Detroit Tigers and San Diego Padres GM) will get an interview just worry me, even if it is only as a courtesy as some people are suggesting.
Certainly a good hire can change everything, but does anyone here even trust Chuck Armstrong and Howard Lincoln will do that???
I'd be shocked if they pulled it off.
JMHawkins on September 22nd, 2008 2:39 pm
Bavasi didn't seem to do any better about prospects turning into major leaguers because of his veterans > prospects approach of the team. If this weren't the case, Adam Jones would have 250 games under his belt by now.
Adam Jones has just short of 200 games under his belt at the age of 23, and would have more if he hadn't got hurt this year. Sure, over half of those games were with Baltimore instead of Seattle, but one of the uses of prospects is to trade for other guys. That the trade ends up being stupid doesn't detract from the fact that the farm system produced something of value.
Bavasi has clearly done a better job of producing home-grown talent than Gillick. He has also clearly done a much worse job adding veterans to the team, and frequently squandered the value produced by the farm system doing so.
Anyway, as to the future, hell I don't know. I agree with Dave that the evidence supports the new GM being allowed to institute a new philosophy. The worst case is that Lincoln and Armstrong hire another behind-the-times member of the club who keeps the M's hapless.
The second worst case is that they hire a decent GM but saddle him with ruinous constraints intended to shore up attendence and the balance sheet in the short term which prevent the needed rebuilding from happening (e.g. can't dump Washburn's salary because we don't want to look like we're giving up. Can't sign FAs cause we don't want to increase payroll with declining gates, etc.).
But if they hire a smart GM and put reasonable constraints on things (e.g. don't increase payroll over 2007/08 levels, signing PR challenges is okay but PR disasters is not, etc.), well, next year could be okay, and 2010 exciting again.
If nothing else, at least we'll be tied with Anaheim on April 6th.
"That the trade ends up being stupid doesn't detract from the fact that the farm system produced something of value."
This is simply my opinion here… but you can't get by as a "GM good at building a farm system" and at the same time undervalue, misuse or simply ignore using players at the major league level.
No one is arguing that Bavasi is a good GM. Now, let's get back to the topic at hand, okay?
scareduck on September 22nd, 2008 4:05 pm
Omar Minaya and Brian Cashman have two sets of demaning owners in NY
I like this typo because you can fill in the blanks one of three ways, and any of them is appropriate:
1) They have been stripped of their manhood.
2) The owners are demanding.
3) The owners are demeaning.
gk91 on September 22nd, 2008 4:18 pm
I think the forced trades of Freddie Garcia and Carlos Guillen are being overlooked.
Dumping Omar for nothing still annoys me, but that was over ten years ago.
dnc on September 22nd, 2008 4:28 pm
Garcia was a forced trade? Based on what?
Guillen is a solid point, but again, that was a decision that was made sans-GM that was carried out shortly after acquiring the new GM. It wasn't something that a sitting GM was forced to do.
Colm on September 22nd, 2008 4:55 pm
Hurrah for David Cameron! The Shining Beacon of Optimism. Fret not downhearted Mariners fans, there is reason for hope as we close this abysmal season of ruin and look forward to a dreary winter in the Northwest.
Say, d'ya think there difference in outlook between Dave and Derek can be accounted for in part because Dave's in sunny, warm North Carolina while Derek is here in Seattle, looking at the start of the seven-eight-nine-month rainy season?
eponymous coward on September 22nd, 2008 5:02 pm
Thanks for doing a better job than I could have of putting into words where I think the Mariners stand on the eve of a complete trainwreck of a season.
To be perfectly honest, it's not going to faze me a lot to see the team not make a big-name signing in the offseason and take payroll down some, because the ones that are out there who are worth big bucks (Tex) have serious downside risk, and a number of the problems on the roster don't require backing up a Brinks armored truck- they'll have to churn a lot of the roster, but they can do some of that quite cheaply.
BaltimoreDave on September 22nd, 2008 5:08 pm
This is an excellent counter-point. Two things stick out:
1) Almost every question, concern and theory expounded in the last two threads as well as the comments to each will be answered not only by who the next GM turns out to be, but more importantly the process Lincoln and Armstrong take to choose him (or her). Because…
2) Both are intelligent, savvy businessmen. They know the height of foolishness is repeating the same processes again and again while expecting a different result. They want their next choice of GM to be as successful as we want it to be. They will almost certainly challenge their own assumptions much more harshly than their fans ever could. They may not have earned it the past few years, but for that reason alone they do deserve some benefit of doubt.
marc w on September 22nd, 2008 5:35 pm
Thought provoking point/counterpoint here.
To me, the key question here is this: do Lincoln/Armstrong think they've "learned" something important in Bavasi's failure?
There's no doubt that they gave both Bavasi and Gillick free rein to design the organization, and I have very little doubt that they'll allow a new GM to do the same.
But I worry that may think that Bavasi's colossal failure indicates that Gillick's strategies really are better – that the problem with the Bavasi's tenure was the *premise* of building through the farm and scouting the draft.
This season's been so completely terrible that it might lead to slightly more emotional decision making. That is, that anyone who sounds a bit like Bavasi might not get a fair hearing. If that means that they ask for detailed descriptions of what a 'good' ballplayer can do and how you identify them, fine. If it means that they're skeptical that player development is anything more than an expensive lottery ticket, that's bad.
I don't really know how to handicap this, so I'll leave it to those with more knowledge of the people involved. But while I think they'll invest in the team and while I think they'll give the GM a ton of authority, there's still a way they could screw this up.
diderot on September 22nd, 2008 8:09 pm
First of all, I'd like to nominate this as best post of the year.
Secondly, I think Evan's initial comment is the most relevant. The most important issue concerns the criteria ownership will use to choose the next GM. What will they ask of him/her? Is the goal to maximize wins next year?
Or will they lay out a rebuilding scenario, e.g., do what you have to do to put us in contention in 2011 (I don't care how many games you lose in the interim)?
Is Lincoln stupid? No.
Is he pissed? Yes.
Remember…this is his last rodeo. He's been a winner his entire business career. Do you think he wants to go out a loser?
But still…on what criteria will they hire the next GM?
scott19 on September 22nd, 2008 8:32 pm
Personally, I'd rather get out the ole' Ouija board and see if we can channel Abe Lincoln to advise the M's on a new GM.
DoesntCompute on September 22nd, 2008 9:34 pm
Abe would be four square and seven years above a replacement level GM.
Eastside Crank on September 23rd, 2008 10:40 am
While I greatly respect the keen analysis by the recently converted bluebird of happiness, Dave, I am closer to DMZ in my evaluation of L/A. It is important for the GM to have a vision for the organization and he/she needs the support of the owners to make that vision happen. The owners need to be able to make that vision work financially and also have a longer view of where the organization is going. Ideally they should understand the vision well enough to offer counterpoints when big decisions are made.
Dave makes the point that L/A have effectively conceded the vision to their GMs and have done a reasonable job supporting them financially. However, L/A do not seem to have a long term plan for the organization and are not able to intercede when the GM is making poor decisions that cripple the organization over time. The lack of a long term vision is seen with the drastically different styles between Gillick and Bavasi. It seems more like throwing darts and seeing what sticks. What new direction will the franchise go now? The inability to understand what the GM was doing became apparent with the Bedard trade. Why would you build your farm system and actually develop players ideal for Safeco and then trade them away? Especially when you do not have other players waiting in the wings to fill their roles? L/A were just as clueless about the Mariners chances this year as Steve Phillips was.
My optimism for the Mariners is based on L/A losing much of their control of the team this off-season. If they remain in control I do not see how the next GM will be significantly better.
avideo on September 23rd, 2008 4:26 pm
There are some very valid points made here in this post – which I also regard as one of the very best of the first season I've been here. As mentioned already, Lincoln and Armstrong are sharp businessmen and will have to use their wits chosing a new GM. Also keep in mind that this team will face bringing in fans and revenue in an already weak economy, which as an active investor, I suspect will last well into next year. It's nice being the only MLB franchise in the Northwest; but with high gas prices and a slowing economy you can be sure there will be less people coming.
Given the team's awful record, you can be assured that all but the truly faithful and well-off will be buying season tickets this coming winter. That means less fannies in the seats, not to mention less extra revenue that comes from concessions and team store sales. So it now becomes even more critical to the Mariners success to find a GM who can create a "winner" over a number of years.
Osfan on September 23rd, 2008 6:48 pm
Abe Lincoln did employ Abner Doubleday for a period of time and I think he knew a little something about baseball. So, maybe Scott is on to something.