 One announcement concerning your labs starting next week is that a new version of the lab handout is available online on the course website. You push laboratory schedule and you have your free downloads there for the lab materials. The handout for this coming week has been revised. So if you printed it previously, you probably have to do it again, unfortunately. You need to bring it with you to lab. And that may be true for labs in subsequent weeks that they get revised and thus you'll need to reprint them if you've printed them already. Maybe hold off on printing them in the future, just in case of that. Alright, but labs do start next week with your discussion sections. With so much to cover, I'm going to jump right in. Office hours for the GSIs are now settled and they're posted at 2013. And I think they will also be posted on the web. All the GSIs hold office hours each week. So when you look at that schedule and you combine it with the fact that I hold office hours and the other instructors in here, the other lecturers will hold office hours after lecture, and they'll have opportunities almost all week to come talk to someone about biology and what could be better than that. So please do take advantage. Alright, today's lecture is on community ecology. I'm going to actually start on the board a little bit here. I'm also going to make the next lecture on subjects related to community ecology. So we'll, as of next week, push the lectures back by one and combine two lectures toward the end. So I'm going to extend this one. We'll start talking about community ecology today and we will spend Monday on it as well. I want to just wrap up what I was talking about on interspecific relationships last time. I'll give you a way to sort out the types of interspecific relationships I was discussing and the means by which I was categorizing them. Remember that we categorized our interspecific relationships based on the effect that they have on the participants. So if we consider, and I also realized watching the webcast for the last time that my writing left a lot to be desired. I need to space it out more, so I'm going to try to do that. Effect on species one and the effect on a second species. And we're simply using a scheme of a positive effect, a negative effect, or a neutral, no effect. So we can speak in terms of a harm, a benefit, or no effect. And the same thing for the second species. I hope everyone can read this out in TV land. Hopefully that's big enough. So, see what we're doing here? Sort of creating this grid of effects to simply model the ecological relationships between interacting species, interacting organisms. In the case of two interacting species or organisms that are detrimentally affecting each other, so causing a negative, negative relationship, what would be one of the types of, what would be the category that we were referring to last time? What would be this category of ecological relationship? Negative effects, detrimental effects on both participants. For example, competition. It's the only one we need to worry about. Competition where both are harming the other. In terms of a relationship where one is harmed, but another is benefited. Predation, yeah. The other one, the other major class that I didn't discuss, and we can conclude herbivory under predation there, right? The other major category is parasitism. And that you probably won't be able to read on the web, but I'll say it for you. Parasitism. So you can go back to refer to the slides from last time that you have as a PDF to look at my couple of slides on parasites. You have all heard of that, and you can read about examples in the book. I'm not going to review those slides. And then that would be, that would exist here too, right? Just in the opposite direction. And another major category that wasn't really a focus of study in ecology for the longest time. Really it took off in the late 60s and 70s, and now it's a fundamental part of biology today. The study of what type of ecological relationship that is beneficial to both participants. Mutualism. Funny the history of that. I wish I could go into it, but there was a real strong resistance. An emphasis on competition and a de-emphasis on mutualism. In my slides that I gave you as a PDF, I have many examples including many examples of mutualistic relationships, including nitrogen fixation in plants where bacteria are associated with higher plants in fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere, which is shunted to the plants, or the phenomenon of lichen. Lichen that you're familiar with from growing on trees and rocky surfaces has a symbiosis, a mutualism between a fungus and an algae, an analga, or a cyanobacteria. Pollination systems where a pollinator gets a reward from a plant and serves as a reproductive, as a vector for reproduction for the plant. Pollination systems are types of mutualism, mycorrhizae, a huge number of mutualisms that could be discussed, all of which are critically important in sustaining ecosystems. But really my slides there, I was just going to tell stories and show pictures, so it's not technically difficult, so you can just go look at some of those examples. The other one that I want to highlight here is the phenomenon of one organism benefiting and the other one not really being affected at all. What is that? Commensalism. And the example that I would have used, and Concerns of Bird, I brought up earlier in the semester regarding its dispersal to the New World. Remember the cattle egret? It's the one that rides on the backs of big mammals, like buffalo or elephants, and as the substrate is disturbed and insects are kicked up or lizards are maimed and easily picked off the ground, the bird goes and gathers these things. The big mammals don't really mind the little bird riding on their back. It doesn't seem. They're so big, it's just not very weighty. If they get tired, they could flip it off with their tail, I guess. And maybe this is a good example of a case where maybe those buffalo should know about the pride of lions on the horizon, and those birds are going to more readily see that pride of lions than the buffalo themselves. So this highlights a case where a commensalistic relationship may turn into a mutualistic relationship, and that these categories are very dynamic over the course of a day, over the course of seasons, and we can't fix species into these various categories, and we'll see further examples of that today, how we can't fix species into firm categories. In biology, things are so dynamic and fluid, and boundaries are so fuzzy so often that we need to be flexible with our definitions. So no effect in benefit, no effect in benefit, this would be commensalism. I'm not worried about this phenomenon of one species being harmed and the other not being affected. Some people call it amensalism, not a major category of interest, and no effect and no effect. Well, that's pretty boring. Okay, so that should wrap up the things we were talking about last time. So let's get into our material, our new material for today. So we've just reviewed those categories, and now we want to briefly wrestle with the question of what is a community, and then we will explore diversity metrics and the phenomenon of species richness and how it's measured. We will look at these categories of keystone species, ecosystem engineers, and facilitator species, particular types of species in communities that have a major structural role in those communities. And then we will finish with a discussion of the very important topic of community succession and focus on disturbance and its role, the role of physical disturbances in community succession. Good times. All right, what is a community? This is actually a very old question with an extremely rich history and deep philosophical debates surrounding it. We won't get into all that, although it is fun. Basically, that old debate goes back to American... It's traced most fundamentally in the history of ecology to American workers, Frederick Clements, who had a view of the community as a kind of superorganism as so tightly integrated and interrelated among its members that it functioned like an organism, like a giant organism the community did. The counterpoint to that is a view of the community as a haphazard assembly of species that are present in a local area because of their separate relationships to physical factors primarily. This individualistic view of the community is usually traced to Henry Gleason in America and this point counterpoint, this view of the community as an integrated whole versus a more random assemblage can be seen in other countries and other scientific communities as having played out over the years and it still plays out these two perspectives on the community. We will move right down the middle between those viewpoints hopefully and for practical purposes just define a community as a group of populations of different species living close enough together to interact. With our example here from this forest and a deer photoshopped into the front to give a sense of another species of organism. But in this community remember that in the... It certainly looks photoshopped to me, I didn't do it. Remember that in the soils here are going to be rich in microbes and fungi in various worms and invertebrates of birds in the canopy, the deer, the wolves hunting the deer and so forth. This is an integrated system of distinct species as a community. One of the problems with the super organism concept is that it's so often hard to define the boundaries of a community. Where does it... I mean, if you look at... If it's a super organism like analogous to, say, ourselves it's pretty easy to see your own boundaries, right? You have your hair goes only so far and your skin forms the outer crust of your body and it looks like you have this integrity as a single thing. Well, if a community is like that, there are its boundaries. One of the arguments against that is, well, let's take a closer look at ourselves and we see that we're breathing in and out, we're radiating heat, we're certainly ingesting things from the environment and giving them back. So, in a sense, our boundaries are actually a lot more fuzzy than our apparent at first glance. That's one argument for how a community's boundaries may not be apparently very firm, but in fact are real. But let's just be practical and say that the boundaries of the community are set by the researcher based on observed distributions. It's often a very practical thing, the boundaries of the community set in an investigation. I mean, it might be a tract of forest that's been cut at all the edges and it's just a square kilometer of forest and that's because there are roads all around it. Well, there's your community. It's bounded by the roads. It's often something like this. Here's a natural example of a community that does have a distinct boundary. Communities with really hard and distinct boundaries in nature are often driven by physical phenomena that underlie them and in this case, this is a grassland in the distance with another area with much more rich and wildflowers. This is in California where the wildflower rich section is growing on serpentine soil where it's magnesium rich and so these types of wildflowers which require that are able to grow there. The grassland area growing on a sandstone substrate don't have those minerals and it's the grasses that dominate without the wildflowers. So a distinct boundary exists there between these communities. These are communities, right? I mean, it's not just a single type of plant. There are multiple populations, multiple species. The insects will be different here. The microbes will be different in the foreground than they are in the background system. These are different communities. They have a pretty hard boundary as a result of a distinct physical boundary. Or in this case, you have this nice riverine system meandering through with some ponding areas here and a forest edge. Probably this edge is most related to the waterlogged soil conditions that exist in this basin here. So these trees can't grow there because the soils are too wet. They're permanently wet. And as a result, there's a strong edge to that system. This could easily be defined as one community here and this as a second riparian community here. This perhaps has some distinct community here and so forth with a pond community back here separate from this flowing system. Let's talk about communities are assemblages of different species. Let's think about that a little more. Let's think about species richness and species evenness. I got this figure from someone else. I'm not sure who actually originally made this picture, but it's fun. Those shapes with their colors represent individual organisms. The different colors, they're all the same shape. The different colors represent different species. Which of these systems is more diverse? This one seems more diverse. Which one has more species? They have the same number of species. They have three. They have the pretty green one. They have the brownish mustardy one. And they have this pale greenish one. They have different colors on my computer than they are on your screen. And this one has the same three species. But they're more evenly distributed in terms of their relative abundance. And you intuitively see that that equals greater diversity. So species richness will just define as the total number of species in a community. Species evenness captures the relative abundance of individuals of these different species. Let's look at a... I think this is straight out of the eighth edition. This example, it's a good one. Same idea where you have these two communities with four species. Both communities have four species in them, A, B, C, and D. And you're given the percent representation of individuals in the two communities here. They all occupy... They all form one quarter each of the total number of individuals in community one. In community two, it's dominated by species A at 80%. How can we measure, formally, measure diversity here? Here's an index. I believe it's... Sorry, I haven't looked at the eighth edition. In a couple months. I believe this is from the eighth. I believe this is given to you the Shannon Diversity Index. I'd like you to understand what it's doing. You don't have to memorize the formula necessarily. But I do want you to punch it into your calculator which will give you just a more formal understanding of how diversity can be quantified and how you can show with numbers that the one community is more diverse than the other. Shannon Diversity Index just represented by the capital H here. It's an equation that relies on the proportional representation of species A multiplied by the natural log of that proportion plus the proportional representation of B times the natural log of the proportion of B and so forth for as many species as you have. And so please just punch it into your calculator on your own time and compute the Shannon Diversity Index for these two communities to see what it comes out as. You'll just have to figure out how to do the natural log on your calculator. Dominant species. Your book is going to differ a little bit on some of these terms than what I give you. I think your book is a little funny on some of these terms. So please don't be confused about them. It's not necessary. These are pretty simple concepts and I will differ from your book on a couple of points. On the exam I'll be testing on what I say, not on what the book says. A dominant species is just a species that is numerically abundant in a community in terms of either total number of individuals or biomass. Biomass is just what it sounds like. It's the mass. It's the weight of a bunch of organisms. Usually you do that in a study. You dry them out. If you're interested in the biomass of a plant you take all the moisture out. You dry it out and then you weigh it. And that gives you the biomass of that plant. So when we speak of the biomass of a species in a community we think of it in terms of the mass of all those individuals belonging to that species in the community. And you can think about it as their dry weight if you want to. Or very often we're just talking about total number of individuals. Here's an example of a tree, the American chestnut that used to be dominant in many forests on the east coast of the United States in the Appalachian region. These trees could have been as highly represented as a quarter of all big trees in a forest. They were numerically abundant and they had the highest biomass of any tree species in these systems. And they were massive, fabulous, big trees. And an infestation came in as transferred from related species of trees from outside of North America that basically wiped them out of those systems. It was a fungal, it was an Ascomyceid fungus that caused these cankers and that ultimately killed the trees. And they weren't all killed, there are still American chestnuts, but they were basically lost as major members of these communities, a dominant species having been completely wiped out. This changed those communities, but it didn't radically restructure those communities. For the most part, other trees just came to occupy the spaces vacated by the chestnuts, other species that had been there, became numerically more abundant. The chestnuts were often the tallest, the emergent trees, and so those trees took those spaces. You'll see why I emphasize that now, I think, when I talk about keystone species. A keystone species is a species that is not necessarily abundant, but it exerts a very strong control on community structure. The dominant species is one that is numerically abundant. It has a big effect on the community just because it occupies so much biomass and space, but if you remove it, it doesn't reorganize the system in a radical way necessarily. A keystone species will reorganize the system in a radical way if you remove it, and what's so interesting is it's not numerically abundant. A great example comes from our coast here, with this starfish, Pisaster. Pisaster is like most starfish. It's a predatory animal that eats a variety of organisms from the intertidal, in this case, including snails, bivalve mollusks, barnacles. Well, no, those are going to the snail. Primarily it's eating chitins, bivalve mollusks, and gastropod mollusks. I was down in Asilomar this summer just south of Monterey, and my wife caught one of these things, and it had a partially eaten chitin within its arms, fantastic. They'll open mussels and clams and things by, they're so strong, right? Starfish are so strong. They'll hold the shell and then gradually pry it open, just based on the strength that they use to overpower the animal, and then they avert their stomach into the mollusk and digest it outside themselves, really, and consume it as it's being digested. There are powerful predators of these other organisms, including these mussels. Now, mussels like oysters will form these big banks, these big reefs, and once they get established, there's not much else that grows with them. Not much algae is going to grow with them. The barnacles are going to have trouble finding space unless they take up residence on the shelves of the mussels themselves. Here's Pisaster devouring a mussel. Look what happens in systems where you remove Pisaster in an experimental system where you go in and you set up a boundary, a, you know, a fence, a screen or something, and you remove Pisaster. What happens to the total number of species present? Species richness. When you remove it, it plummets. Here's a study that was conducted over ten years. That's a really long time for a field study like this. Species richness plummeted in the absence of Pisaster. In a control, in an experimental control where Pisaster was untouched, species richness was more or less maintained over the decade. What's the importance of the control there? Just thinking methodologically. Why have a control here? So you have something led? So you have something to compare the test against. What if you didn't have that? If you didn't run a control in this context, what would you say about this curve, these data here? Could you say that the loss of species richness was a result of the removal of Pisaster? Why not? What could it be a result of? Other factors, for example, disease. Yeah, that's what people are saying, that's great. Or climate change. Maybe the waters got really cold over that decade and the community was restructured as a result of changing water temperatures or disease came in and just knocked everything down. Yeah, so that's the importance of having that control and that's really compelling data that Pisaster's playing a major structural role in that community. Another great example, local, is our very own fluffy sea otter. Sea otters actually eat starfish, in some cases. They have very powerful jaws and gigantic teeth and they like urchins and crabs and five-valve mollusks, clams, and they don't eat much fish at all. They are another keystone species. I won't spend much time on this. They form these in kelp forests. They reach their highest numbers in these kelp forests. They wrap themselves up in kelp so they don't float away at night and get eaten by sharks. Just because the kelp is a very rich ecosystem with one of their favorite preys, urchins, that themselves, these urchins, eat the kelp. The kelp is a brown alga. Why is the sea otter a keystone species? Well, an artificial experiment was run, really, because sea otters were so vigorously hunted because their fur is so nice. They were hunted to the brink of extinction in the Pacific throughout their entire range. There were just patches of them up in Alaska, small patches of them, and a little bunch of them, like 20 or 30 individuals down at Big Sur, at Bixby Creek, under the bridge down there. Apparently the locals knew about it, but weren't really saying anything. From that little colony down there, they've expanded throughout California and the Alaskan population has expanded quite a lot as well, so they've really come back in many ways. What happens when you remove the sea otters? When you remove the sea otters, the urchins go crazy, and the urchins can wipe out whole kelp forests as a result of their appetite. They reproduce quite well in the absence of their major predator, and they can devour these kelp down to the base, and these kelp systems are fabulously diverse. If the water were more clear, they would be exquisite places to scuba dive. They're still pretty good, but it's just that the waters around here are not always so clear or so calm. But full of fish, full of microorganisms, full of other organisms, very, very rich communities, that if you pull out the sea otters, which are not very abundant, you can lose these systems as a result of the increases in kelp, increases in urchins. A neat study from a couple years ago added killer whales, orca, to the mix. The otters came back relatively well, as I mentioned around the Pacific Rim, but they went into sharp decline in some areas as a result of predation by killer whales. This seemed to have been a case of just a couple of killer whales developing a taste for sea otters. Where it wasn't a primary prey, they learned that they could catch them pretty easily if they snuck into the kelp forests. It was a nice little cookie treat. Maybe you can't make a living on it, but you could snack on them. The effect of just a couple of whales, a couple or a few whales, led to declines in sea otter abundance that cascaded to increases in urchins that led to collapses in kelp forest ecosystems. Really interesting phenomenon. I'll talk a little bit more about it when we talk about trophic dynamics. I don't think your book mentions ecosystem engineers. It uses a funny-term foundation species. You do not need to have anything to do with that term foundation species if you don't want. The first time I heard about it was reading Campbell, and I've never heard anyone else use it. We do want to make a distinction here, although it's not that firm, from a keystone species to an ecosystem engineer. With an ecosystem engineer, think more in terms of the physical alteration of the habitat by the activities of the organism. Many times, these ecosystem engineers are also keystone species, but we'll draw a distinction, and the beaver is a great example of an organism that radically alters the physical landscape as a result of its activity. In this case, of course, it's taking a flowing body of water and damming it with trees and branches and materials that it gathers and organizes to create a pundit environment behind that dam that creates a new habitat for other organisms that couldn't have lived there previously. Many aquatic organisms that rely on slow flowing or stagnant waters than other mammals like mink and otter come in and occupy these systems where they may not have existed in much abundance before. Of course, beavers are a big problem for people in many areas. They're coming back quite well. This is another animal that was hunted a lot for its fur. They're coming back in the Bay Area, hearing about local towns where all of a sudden the roads are flooding, and what do you do? You go down to the creek and realize that a beaver family has set up shop, and they've flooded the creek, and now it's spilling onto the road, and everyone's happy that they're... Wow, there are beavers. There haven't been beavers here in 80 years, but no one's happy that the roads are flooded, and then it becomes a big problem. What do you do? You'll hear more and more about that as beavers expand their range again. These ecosystem engineers can have positive or negative effects on other species. Other examples, elephants are a good example. Humans are a great example of a creature that tunnels and builds and levels things, and creates a radical alteration of the environment that affects other species. Elephants knock down whole trees in the process of their activities, but they also dig wallows. They dig down to the water table in the dry season and create ponds for themselves to drink out of and to bathe in, and that creates a water source for a huge range of organisms that wouldn't have had access to water in that season. They engineer the environment in that way. I think the reason your book stays away from the term is because they're scared you're going to be too anthropomorphic about it, that you're going to think about these animals as like engineers trying to do this for other organisms, or somehow anthropomorphize it, or anthropomorphize them if you know that term, to give to them human qualities that they don't necessarily have. I don't fear for you, as in terms of anthropomorphizing these creatures, so that term is a good one, ecosystem engineer, but just realize that they may have a different motivation if they have any motivation at all from what humans do in their engineering work. This is an animal I spent a lot of time thinking about, these crabs in Africa. I think they're a great example of an ecosystem engineer. They're very abundant, and they tunnel in the banks of streams and rivers and lakes across Africa. Almost every freshwater environment has them. They aerate the soil, they cause a lot of erosion, they create burrows and below ground systems for other creatures. They are great engineers of the environment. They're also thought to be keystone species for their, it just gives you a sense of their size. They're big, but they start small, and they serve as food for a lot of other creatures. So I think it's a great example of an animal that's both a keystone species and an ecosystem engineer. If you have any interest in crabs, no one studies these things. So if you have any interest in crabs, you can figure something out about these guys. There's literally, you know, you can count on two hands the number of field studies on these things, maybe one hand. An animal so important. So let's look at a category of species that has, I'm thinking in terms of positive effects on other species. This is a great example from your book. I'll let you focus on it there so we can carry on. This is Junkus. It's a rush. It's a salt marsh plant, black rush. Where Junkus grows, it shades the substrate in these marshes, creating more moisture at the soil level, and reducing evaporation. Evaporation, if high in these systems, would create heavy salt loads and toxify the environment for other plants. Their roots oxygenate the substrate and allow other plants to grow. And you can see in this simple, with these simple data, the effect of Junkus on other species there. Call it a facilitator. So let's get into succession, and we can finish with succession today, although there's a lot to cover here. So if you need to leave early, just try to do it quietly so that we don't get distracted at the end. It's certainly distracting to me. I lose my train of thought, so if you need to leave early, try to do so more than a few minutes before the end of class, and then I'll get you out of here right on time. Okay, so succession. Let's define it in this way. The non-seasonal, directional, and continuous pattern of colonization and extinction on a site by species populations. So non-seasonal, not related to the seasons, directional and continuous. This is the turn, turn, turning of the seasons. We do not mean succession when we think about this type of cycling from spring to summer, to fall to winter, and these changes. These are seasonal changes. With succession, we're thinking about something else. And succession is another part of ecology that has a great history. It's been intensively studied for a century or more. One of the first guys to study it formally was actually Thoreau, who I mentioned before, that naturalist. He was doing studies on succession right at the end of his life when he died suddenly. Let me write a couple of things on the board and give you a couple definitions here. So I'm going to consider a couple of types of succession. We'll distinguish primary succession. Notate it that way if you want secondary succession. Secondary succession and degradative. This is a word I have a hard time saying. Degradative. Students always have a little difficulty with this, so I'm going to give you just a definition for primary succession. So this will be the successional process. Succession in an area where no organisms are present. And you'll see that that differs a bit from your book. Please don't worry about it. You can see how similar the definitions are. Succession in an area where no organisms are present. Successional on a sterile substrate. Succession in an environment that has somehow been denuded, has somehow been wiped of all its biological activity. Your book focuses on primary succession as succession in an area where there's no soil. That's fine. That emphasizes a terrestrial ecosystem, though. Succession occurs in the ocean as well, where there's no soil. And you can have a primary succession on a coral reef, for example, or say at a hydrothermal vent in the deep ocean where it's been wiped out by a volcanic eruption, and then it forms again. It's been completely sterilized, and a new community is built on that site. That would be a primary succession. I'll give you examples from terrestrial systems, too. Secondary succession is just succession in an area where a biological community is partially intact. You won't be able to read that, so I'll say it. In an area where a biological community is partially intact. That's secondary succession. Degradative... What do you think that is? Degradative succession. Where might that occur? What do you think that is? I think forensic anthropology or something like that. Degradative succession would occur in a... In a what? Out of dead organisms, yeah. Out of... Did I scribble a definition? Yeah, succession on or in dead or dying organic matter. Succession on or in dead or dying organic matter. So a human body goes through a successional process of death if left out, you know, if left to its own devices. And that's how forensic scientists can date the time of death by the stage of succession of other organisms in that decaying body. Or less morbidly, perhaps. A fallen log, a tree that falls in the forest, goes through a successional process on its outer covering and within the body of the trunk of other organisms coming to occupy that habitat. That's degradative. And we won't talk more about it. Let's go to slides of... Considered primary versus secondary succession. So a lava flow, a volcanic eruption, like here at Mount St. Helens, sterilizes the habitat, right? Sterilizes the substrate. Really, in some of these cases, nothing will remain living. And yet the community comes back fairly quickly in a primary successional context. It takes time, but eventually, this directional process of community change will unfold and it's a fascinating thing to study, the way in which that works. Here's an example of secondary succession, a fire having moved through this forest. It may have killed a lot of organisms, but some of these trees survived and certainly many organisms in these soils have survived. So when succession gets going again, there's a significant biological community existing here already in this context. So this would be a secondary succession. You're not talking about a sterilized environment. And here, that's just a year later after that fire. I mean, it's primarily the flowers that you're seeing here, but there's a lot of green vegetation that's coming back and some leafy vegetation you can see in the distance. So the secondary succession process often unfolds much more rapidly, all things being equal. So let's look at this example from Glacier Bay, our last thing today. It's a pretty complex example, but it's a great one. This is a case where succession takes a long time, so longer than the lives of most ecologists. Here's a case where you have this glacial retreat in Alaska, glaciers that were extended to the coast in 1760 that have been gradually retreating, such that 100 years later they were all the way back here, another 50 years they're back here, and another 30-some years they've retreated to here. So see how as a result of this, you can study succession at a single point in time by these spatial differences that would exist in these communities, in these different areas. It gives you a window in succession in one area at one time, but it has that time depth, right? So the successional process is at its youngest stages here, and we can see the pioneering plants that occupy that habitat. That's a formal term in the study of succession, a pioneer. It's a plant. It's an organism that arrives in an early successional habitat early and becomes established early in the sequence. And then these systems go through these various stages, a driest stage, a spruce stage, and an alder stage, so-called. Actually the driest stage precedes the alder stage, and the spruce stage is later. So here are your pioneers, flowering plants that come in. We need to consider why they are able to get there first and establish, and we'll get into that on Monday with our selection and Kay's selection. All right.