1. City’s wood waste system: Steve Harris, a lot of ash is getting chipped.
Cosmo Fanizi has a mill in the city. City Woods.
2. The new DPW direction was on OCRRA, she is looking into make more of the yard waste.
3. Urban sugaring. Management plan or a financial analysis.
How are you going to proceed? How to narrow it down?
Where is there more of a need? The City Woods thing is pretty well established.
What would the objective be?
What would the product be?
Great coverage of subject matter!
Some citations are incomplete. Can a reader find the reference from the information you provide?
Proofread! These came in automated: Ehrlich, John. n.d. (but the date appears later)
Cost analysis, check citations: include URL, date, organization, etc.
Star system 0-5, 0 being irrelevant, 5 being great
... great sources!...
Denig: maybe talk to city, could be valuable
King: invasive species regulations
*find regulations that could pertain to syracuse
Matheny: “lower stars”
Mitchell: should find out how title is relevant
Nowak & O’Connor: good for syracuse
Plumb: may not be relevant: “woody green waste”
Conference may be very helpful (who hosted it, is there more information outside this conference)
Are there more recent national surveys of urban tree residues?
We reviewed the review sheet for proposals, which lays out what is expected.
Sara, Sean, and Anastasia gave Intro Presentations (see google folder). Thanks!
Aley had some project ideas, we asked clarifying questions.
Neonectria is the genus, you identify the species by the length of the ascospores. So does N or P addition affect the size of the ascospores (i.e. a change in species dominance).
Or, does nutrient addition affect whether the two species co-occur on the same tree? In the same plot or the same tree?
Whether the age of the stand affects co-occurrence.
Sarah: For the age of the tree, do you need to know when the disease arrived?
Ruth: At the scale of the landscape, the disease arrived at all our sites at the same time. But it takes time for the disease to develop on an individual tree, so little trees will be different than big trees.
Sarah and Sean review each other’s proposals. Aley and Anastasia review each other’s proposals.
Upload them and we’ll talk about them when we meet next.
Send your draft final report to everyone on ....
Primary reviewers: (see above)
Upload a written review by class time on Feb 26.
Secondary reviewers are responsible for reading the proposal but not writing a review.
Secondary reviewers (never mind, everyone should look over all the proposals).
Start with a general problem statement and funnel us towards the very specific problem that you’re going to answer with your results. What is known and what knowledge gap you will fill.
Could include testable hypotheses
Methods (what’s needed to meet the objectives)
Expected results: Make a graph with imaginary data. This may help you develop hypotheses! Then go back and make the case in your Introduction for these expectation.
Could include broader implications
Budget your time
● Supplies and materials we need to purchase
Everything that you cite and nothing more
Use APA or another format that allows us to see the author
Choose the reference most useful to the reader NOT the one where you first read about this.
We discussed the cover page, how much contact information should be included? Enough for someone to pick up the phone and call you? Are they going to fax you?
Anastasia’s product will be a proposal (potentially confusing); put the outline of that proposal in the Products section
I forget who said this was a good timeline, we can adjust.
Sarah finished today, earlier than anticipated.
Sean is checking something with Dan, will finish this weekend or early next week.
Anastasia: end of this week or beginning of next week.
Paper copies can be delivered to 428 Greenwood Place (end of Avondale, 1 block from Westcott)
Upload and we’ll look at examples and see what works best.
Sean has estimated times, which is the best way to improve your estimation skills.
Sarah has in and out like a time clock. Use Excel to calculate the time worked.
For adding hours in different categories, you could use labels and an “if” in Excel.
Lookup tables (VLookup or HLookup) are cool, check them out.
Freeze panes so we can see your column and row headings even when we scroll.
Consider Toggl for tracking your time--and tell us how it went.
Sarah’s twigs are going according to Plan.
Sean was held up by school closing. He wants to finish leaves before spring break. Lab work will be strictly scheduled.
Anastasia: Things are moving consistently. She will have more time over the break.
Feedback on the activities to date, and suggestions for the rest of the semester.
10 project ideas
3 project ideas
Review of draft proposals
Future secondary topics (your projects being primary):
Anastasia: Team management, etc.
Steps towards grad school.
Sean had questions about statistical models, we will have a session for that on April 9.
Sarah hasn’t started microtome processing yet. Alex is going to try it and then decide. So next week we want an update on everyone’s scope of work.
Anastasia sent her proposal (draft report) today. A lot of people contributed, she’s starting to get numbers. For her GIS class, she is doing a cost-distance analysis. The state arborist has a database. The town of DeWitt keeps track of costs (better than the City of Syracuse). They use the FEMA schedule of equipment estimates. This will help compare different options for disposal. Currently she has three options (including business as usual, what they are doing now).
Toggl if anyone tried it.
Sarah will give us a report on the scope of her project:
Twigs will be done on time. It’s faster now that they have more blocks.
Microtome sectioning has yet to be tested. It was done in a class, they are looking for materials, like the mounting medium. Alex is concerned about some aspect of the medium damaging the leaves.
Same for Sean given how much time he has and how to prioritize sample processing for tissue analysis.
Answer: He will start with C1, and do all the species in one stand. Then he will do all the yellow birch, since all the stands have yellow birch. That will mean 99 samples total. Other students are helping (four students total), for 10 hours of grinding, 3 digestion runs, 8-10 hours. The ICP is an unknown. Ruth’s advice is to book in advance!
Anastasia reports that things are going well. Ruth’s feedback on the proposal was helpful.
We discussed how to cite personal communications and various choices of style guides.
Sarah, Dan, Sean, David, Alex, Ruth
Factorial NxP or 4 treatments? Goswami et al. 2018, Ecology uses both. They tested for an interaction, and then since P had an effect on growth but not N, they tested whether NP was any better than P. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecy.2100
Model: (factorial) y~ Ntrt + Ptrt + Ntrt*Ptrt
(each observation is coded as to whether it got N or P)
Model: (no-factorial) y~ N + P + NP + Control
(each observation is coded with one of these treatments)
Fixed vs. random effects: Are you interested in differences among stands? If they are replicates, then stand is a random effect.
In the MELNHE study, we have argued about whether site (JB, HB, Bartlett) is a fixed effect, we picked them for contrasting soils.
If they are three samples that characterize the landscape, you could argue that site should be random.
Scope: 3 stand (C7, C8, C9), 4 plots/stand, 1 tree/plot
experimental unit: tree (same as plot)
response variables: foliar chemistry elements (N, and others!), twig length, twig mass, specific twig length, leaf mass, leaf area, specific leaf area. Ask for more variables if those turn out to be disappointing (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, cholorophyll a/b, total carotenoids.
explanatory: height in the canopy, treatment (N,P,NP,C)
Model statement for sla: sla ~ Ntrmt + Ptrmt + Ntrmt:Ptrmt + dfromtop
---- the above model does not ackowledge that there are three different stands.
model statement for sla (including tree nested within stand):
sla ~ Ntrmt + Ptrmt + Ntrmt:Ptrmt + dfromtop + ( 1 |Stand/Tree.ID)
Which is a better predictor, height from the top or height from the bottom? (These are different because trees were different heights and had different numbers of samples collected at 2-m intervals from the top) Try also scaling each tree and giving the height a value from 0-1.
experimental unit: tree #
response: specific leaf area, Resorption Efficiency and Proficiency Chemistry (P,Ca,...), leaf mass, and leaf area
explanatory: treatment (N,P,NP,Control, Ca (only C1,C6,C8)), species, stand age, site, DBH?
model 1 (NxP! for C1) <- sla ~ Ntrt + Ptrt + species + Ntrt:Ptrt:species + Ntrt:Ptrt
model 2 (Treatment for C1) <- sla ~ Treatment + species + Treatment:species
B. Scope: 1 species (YB), 4 stands: C4, C6, C8, and C9
model 3 (NxP! for other stands for YB only) <- sla ~ Ntrt + Ptrt + Ntrt:Ptrt + (1|StandAge/Stand)
model 4 (Treatment for other stands for YB only) <- sla ~ Treatment + (1|StandAge/Stand)
In one stand (C4), for one species, litter was collected at the plot level, not for each tree. But those samples are not part of this analysis
Treat Ca and Control separately from factorial design.
Stands will be a random effect in regards to stand treatment but a fixed effect in regards to stand age.
Bartlett granite based soil
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
chla<-lmer(chla~Ntrmt+Ptrmt+Ntrmt:Ptrmt + dfromtop+(1|Stand/Tree.ID),data=Acerdata)
Response: chlorophyll a
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
Ntrmt 13.1205 1 0.0002921 ***
Ptrmt 0.4282 1 0.5128824
dfromtop 112.4573 1 < 2.2e-16 ***
Ntrmt:Ptrmt 0.0217 1 0.8828385
sla<-lmer(sla~Ntrmt+Ptrmt+Ntrmt:Ptrmt + dfromtop+(1|Stand/Tree.ID),data=Acerdata)
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
Ntrmt 2.0879 1 0.1485
Ptrmt 0.0784 1 0.7794
dfromtop 165.1977 1 <2e-16 ***
Ntrmt:Ptrmt 0.3533 1 0.5523
chlb<-lmer(chlb~Ntrmt+Ptrmt+Ntrmt:Ptrmt + dfromtop+(1|Stand/Tree.ID),data=Acerdata)
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
Ntrmt 11.1752 1 0.000829 ***
Ptrmt 0.7685 1 0.380667
dfromtop 144.1986 1 < 2.2e-16 ***
Ntrmt:Ptrmt 0.0164 1 0.898245
Sarah submitted a draft, but she’s still working on it. She has some results, will talk to Alex about statistical analysis in R. Maybe Wednesday.
Anastasia is uploading one but she’s hoping to make a couple more maps.
Authors: Tell your reviewer if you are planning to make improvements and when, but they are not required to wait and squeeze in a review at the last minute.
Sarah is waiting on twig data, Gabriel is supposed to do it. Ruth suggested she set a meeting time with him, it’s more likely to get done.
Anastasia: What is the most challenging thing about the project? Putting numbers together in a way that makes sense. We suggested stacked bar graphs.
Review abstracts for Spotlight (due April 17)
We did this in a google doc with other abstracts from my lab (including Sean’s)
Poster boards are 48”, both dimensions? The printer in Baker goes to 36”.
Commonly 36” x 24” (landscape) or 36” x 48” (portrait)