Santa Clara University

Dr. Michelle Marvier

Associate Professor, joint appointment with the Environmental Studies Institute

Educational Background
B.S. 1990 Santa Clara University
Ph.D. 1996 UC Santa Cruz
NSF Postdoctoral Fellow 1996-1998, University of Washington, Seattle

 

Teaching
Biol 5 Endangered Ecosystems
Biol 22 Introduction to Evolution & Ecology
Biol 23 Investigations in Evolution & Ecology L+L
Biol 150 Conservation Biology
Biol 156 General Ecology
Biol 160 Biostatistics

 

Research

My research is focused on two issues: 1.) ecological risk assessment applied to genetically engineered crops and 2.) the conservation of biological diversity.

 

 

 

Are transgenic crops a threat to the environment?

By transferring genes from one organism to another, scientists can create organisms with novel combinations of traits. There is enormous potential for either benefit or harm to result from these genetic manipulations--the difficulty is in predicting which outcome is more likely. Much debate has surrounded the potential environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops. Possible risks include the creation of new weed problems and harmful effects on non-target organisms. undefinedGovernmental regulations require experimental evaluation of these potential environmental risks. I evaluated the design and statistical rigor of experiments conducted to test the safety of transgenic plants for non-target organisms. The number of replicates used in these studies was generally quite small (usually 2-6 replicates per treatment), and studies with so few replicates generally have little chance of detecting real effects. I have argued that sample sizes should be bolstered and non-significant results should be accompanied by an analysis of statistical power. I am currently working on meta-analyses that combine results across many small studies to better assess the effect of transgenic crops for the environment.

Conservation Biology

I am interested in many facets of conservation biology, including the use of conservation easements, approaches to setting international conservation priorities, and the ecological consequences of extinction. Conservation and management of endangered species often involve trying to decide upon the best course of action despite having only a very incomplete picture of what's happening. Because poor or incomplete data are generally the rule, we often must turn to mathematical models to help identify the likely consequences of particular actions. For example, in collaboration with scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, I developed models to compare the likely effects of various management actions for chinook salmon in the Snake River in Idaho. Our approach combines analyses of extinction risk with analyses of demographic matrices to try to identify specific management actions (e.g., removal of dams, reductions in harvest, etc.) most likely to significantly lower extinction risk for threatened salmon populations.

 

Publications

Recent publications related to risk assessment of transgenic crops:

Duan, J.J., J. Lundgren, S. Naranjo, and M. Marvier. In Press. Extrapolating non-target risk of Bt crops from laboratory to field. Biology Letters.

Marvier, M., Y. Carrière, N. Ellstrand, P. Gepts, P. Kareiva, E. Rosi-Marshall, B.E. Tabashnik, L.L. Wolfenbarger.2008. Harvesting data from genetically engineered crops. Science 320:452-453.

Duan, J.J., M. Marvier, J. Huesing, G. Dively, and Z.Y. Huang. 2008. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS One 3: e1415.

Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and P. Kareiva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on non-target invertebrates. Science 316:1475-1477.

Marvier, M. 2007. Pharmaceutical crops have a mixed outlook in California. California Agriculture 61:59-66.

Marvier, M. and S. West. 2007. Ecological risk assessment of GE crops: getting the science fundamentals right. Pages 57-73 in Taylor, I. E. P. (ed) Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation. Haworth Press.

Marvier, M. and R. VanAcker. 2005. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:99-106.

Marvier, M. 2002. Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications 12:1119-1124.

Marvier, M. 2001. Ecology of transgenic crops. American Scientist 89:160-167.

Recent publications related to conservation biology:

Tallis, H., P. Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and A. Chang. 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. PNAS 105:9457-9464.

Kareiva, P., A. Chang, and M. Marvier. 2008. Development and conservation goals in World Bank projects. Science 321:1638-1639.

Kareiva, P. and M. Marvier. 2007. Conservation for the people. Scientific American 297:50-57.

Yuan-Farrell, C., M. Marvier, D. Press, and P. Kareiva. 2005. Conservation easements as a conservation strategy: Is there a sense to the spatial distribution of easements? Natural Areas Journal 25:282-289.

Marvier, M., P. Kareiva, and M. Neubert. 2004. Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and disturbance promote invasion by habitat generalists in a multispecies metapopulation. Risk Analysis 24:869-878.

O'Connor, C., M. Marvier, and P. Kareiva. 2003. Biological versus sociopolitical priority-setting in conservation. Ecology Letters 6:706-711.

Kareiva, P. and M. Marvier. 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots. American Scientist 91:344-351.

Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, S. West, and J. Hornisher. 2002. Slow-moving journals hinder conservation efforts Nature 420:15.

Parrish, J.K., M.A. Marvier, and R.T. Paine. 2001. Direct and indirect effects: Interactions between bald eagles and common murres. Ecological Applications 11:1858-1869.

Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Science 290:977-979.