SUNY ESF
Notes from the NP Addition (Shoestring) Project

Ruth

I can call in today at 2. 

I really like Melany’s suggestion for a humidor. Although I only used a cigar to ward off black flies when I was a student at the Ranger School (Kermit Remele, our instructor for Forest Ecology and Forest mapping at that time, was a great cigar aficionado). SO Melany’s  comment made me smile.

While I am far from an expert (more like a novice), I did learn a great deal from our chestnut leaf decomp study with the transgenic events. My greatest insight is that hindsight is 20/20 (now that we are in that year.)

Russ

From: Fisk, Melany <fiskmc@miamioh.edu> 

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:42 AM

To: Ruth Yanai <rdyanai@syr.edu>

Cc: Tim Fahey <tjf5@cornell.edu>; Jenna M Zukswert <jmzukswe@syr.edu>; Byung Bae Park > <bbpark@cnu.ac.kr>; Russell D. Briggs <rdbriggs@esf.edu>; Brianne Innusa <brinnusa@gmail.com>; Joe Nash <nash@mtu.edu>; Thomas Mann <ttomjr2@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: MELNHE litter decomp 2 p.m. Thursday

Sounds like you need a humidor.  

I have student meetings all afternoon today.  

What if you made the question about litter mixtures and microbes?  Does nutrient availability influence the litter mixture effect.  Each spp alone compared with maple/beech mix, incubated in home plots.  If differences between single and mixed litter occur then test microbial community and decomposer enzyme expression.  

That might be more complicated that you want, but it adds something to the traditional nutrient transplant that has been done previously. 

You should definitely see Lovett et al (attached) and do long-term (5 yr or so)!  Longer-term would give the transplant design some novelty. 

_________________________________

Melany Fisk

Professor, Department of Biology 

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:10 PM Ruth D Yanai <rdyanai@syr.edu> wrote:

Litter decomposition experts, 

I would like your advice on experimental design before we put leaves in litter bags and take them to NH in a week and a half!  If you are free at 2 on Thursday (today or tomorrow, depending on when you read this), please call in to our old FCC line.

If you aren’t planning to join, let me know, otherwise I might call you anyway.  If you would rather talk on Friday afternoon, I’m free then.  If the conference line fails you, call my cell phone, below.

Open questions

1. How much litter to put in a bag vs. how many bags?
2. How many replicates vs. how many times to pick them up?
3. How to place them and find them again?  Do we put them on the surface, or under half of this year’s litter?  Melany, can we put them in your caution tape zones?  Is that realistic, depending on how many we put out?  Where else should we put them?  What about staples and flags?  See below.

Russ: We used ground staples, 2 per bag.  He thinks they were a couple inches, not the 6” landscaping staples.  

Rake the litter later, put the bag in place, and rake litter over it.  

Ruth:  I like that better than leaving them on the surface, where they would get freeze-dried or attract bears.

4. Questions about how to handle them when they come out will all be answered by Melany next summer if we ply her with beer and make her a nice dinner at the White House in Bartlett.

What we have

1. Lots of sugar maple and beech litter collected Oct 3-4!  Well, we don’t have as much as I thought, we were weighing it wet.  The average weight, now that they are air dry, is 20 g per plot-plot combination (e.g. treated leaves going to the control plot or control leaves going into the treatment plots—we collected 4 or 5 bags of leaves from the controls, to put in all the treatment plots, including Ca).  Hence the questions 1-2 above.  We said we wanted 3 g fresh litter in each of 12 bags per plot-plot combo: 3 reps x 4 collection dates.  See photo below.  Should we collapse these down to fewer bags, fewer dates?
2. Stands:  C8, C9, JBO, and HBM.  First priority was supposed to be C7-C8-C9.  We bailed on C7 because it didn’t have much been in two plots, and we sent an inexperienced crew to HB with only a map and they got HBM instead of HBO.  
3. We have lots of 15 cm x 15 cm mesh bags (and a heat sealer, which students prefer to sewing—I like sewing, when I’m on zoom calls).  These seem small now.  We are sealing one side, and one side is folded, to make them easier to load.  But half of the bags are already sewn, with only 1 side open.
4. We have new undergrads in the lab!  They are keen to get involved.  I think especially the freshmen don’t have any other way of meeting people.  So labor is plentiful.
5. We have tree tags on order, to keep track of which bag is which.  Rick Biche did this.  We are starting to weigh the bags empty and label them with paper for now.
6. We also ordered pink pin flags to mark them with (thanks, Joe).
7. We don’t have garden staples.  6” staples would limit where we can put them.  Jenna made tiny staples by unfolding paper clips, which she said worked well. How about electrical staples?  They are shorter than 1/2 paper clip.  How do we feel about zinc plating?

Other things I have learned

• Leaves are very variable!  Having just 3 g (and now it’s < 2 g) of leaves in a sample is just a few leaves.  We got picky, which took time, but we have only whole leaves, no bug bites, no green color.  Hopefully this reduces variability and compensates for small sample sizes.
• You don’t just pop over to JB from Bartlett on a Saturday at peak leaf color.  We wasted a lot of time driving!
• Dan suggested we dry the leaves flat, to make them easier to put in the bags.  There was probably a way to do this, and some are flatter than others.
• The leaves are really dry, indoor “air dry” is not something a leaf would normally experience during its decomposition.

Photos

1. This is how many leaves would go in each of 12 bags, 19 g total (HBM P), 2 similar samples to get initial chemistry.  I spent time trying to get the 4 time series samples within each rep to have similar composition.  When we get to sun vs. shade leaves of beech, this might be important!  When collecting, we stacked them as we collected them, so spreading them across the bags is better than composing a bag from leaves that were all from one tree.
2. I wanted to show how tall the stack of leaves is, relative to the 15 x 15 bag.  But you don’t get binocular vision.  Anyway, I’m concerned about getting them into the bag without crushing them.  Maybe we use the 2-sides open bags for the maple and the sewn ones for the beech.  I’ll look at beech next!

HBM can be our pilot for the pilot.  

I’m inclined to go with more leaves per bag and finish the pilot study in 2 years.  Then a real graduate student can take over and do a better job than I’m doing with my first experiment of my own since graduate school!  I wasn’t good at it then, either.  Right, Tim?

 Russ: Blair and Crossley

Weigh each bag, record the mass, weigh with leaves in it, record it again.  

Oven dry the leaves that remain for initial chemistry, to correct the others for moisture content.

When the samples come out: pick out roots before drying (keep them in the fridge)

Brianne, Jenna, Ruth, Kara, Dan

Experimental design: 

Stands: 3 mature stands at Bartlett, plus mature stands at HB and JB = 5.

Treatments: litter from C, N, P, NP incubated in C.  C litter incubated in C (already counted), N, P, NP.

4 times as much material from C than from N, P, NP plots.  7 combinations total.

7 treatments * 5 stands = 35.  

How many reps to collect at each time in each plot?  Jenna proposed 3, as a minimum for looking at variation.  She did 5 in her thesis project.  Rick put out ?  35* 3 = 105

How long to run it for? How many collection dates?  At 2 years in Rick’s study, there was plenty left.  Jenna’s in BC ran for 3 years, she had up to 20% remaining, and her climate was better than ours for decomposition, maybe.

4 times: Two in the first year (June, November) 2nd year, 3rd year.  = 420

Two species = 840 bags

Amount to collect: enough for 60 bags per species from N, P, NP, and 240 bags from C.

5 stands, 3 reps, 4 collection dates = 60.  Three of those (N, P, NP) + 4 times that for C = 240, 420 total per species.

Number of g to collect: 60 bags * 3 g/bag, 180 g/plot (N, P, NP) and 760 g/plot for C.

Well, in each stand, enough for 12 bags from the N, P, NP plots (3 reps * 4 dates), 36 g.  That’s just a sandwich bag.  Maybe we do the controls the same way, 4 sandwich bags.  Dan suggested laying them flat, they will be less likely to break when we put them in the litterbags.

Species: Jenna proposed Beech (EM) and sugar maple (AM) at the extremes of C:N.  YB will be the other candidate across these stands.  We’ll see when we get there.

Bag material:  Window screen will be quick to get from any hardware store if that’s what we want.  Melany’s screen is on order.   It’s flimsy and makes better contact with the surfaces around it. 

Bag dimensions: Jenna had different sizes for different species.  15 cm x 15 cm for broadleaves (0.0225 m2).  

How to make the bags:  Sewing machine, and staple or sew them shut.  Heat sealers could work on a window screen.  

Renting a sewing machine from SU Makerspace: Contents: Jenna used about 1 g per bag, do we want more since our leaves are big?

Rick used 2.75 g/bag in young stands, 2.55 in old stands.

BB:  I used about 6 g per 16cm * 16cm size of bag in my study. This amount was calculated by annual leaf litter divided by the area of litterfall trap. I am not sure if this approach is reasonable or not!

Using that approach, if we have 2-300 g/m2 of litterfall per year, up to 6 g in a 0.0225 m^2 bag would not be unreasonable.  We’ll go with 3 g, so as not to be unreasonable in the center of our bags.

Kara: How much does a leaf weigh, fresh?  2015: SM 0.47 g, BE 0.26 (fresh, not oven dried)

Dan: 2016 data, YB 0.13 (oven dry), 0.42 very wet (0.4 to 0.6, depending on the stand).  BE 0.21g (for fresh litter) from C1. 

Take a balance in the field so we know when we have enough?

We discussed the value of wearing gloves when touching leaves.  Is it really going to affect the N or P concentrations?  Dan used gloves.  Kara didn’t. Dan recommends gloves for insulation in cold weather and latex gloves over them! 

Storage:  Do not freeze.  Air-drying is okay, it won’t be for long.

Installation:  Jenna stapled hers with paper clips and she didn’t lose any.  Rick pinned his down with wildlife netting (like chicken wire?).  More TBD about installation!

Craig Wayson:

Tom Horton, Tim, Carina, Eva, Ruth

Ruth: Value of Ca vs. N vs. P?

Tom: Ca didn’t pan out for Claudia (fruiting body abundance and composition)

Tim: SM is sensitive to Ca.  We already know that (Juice)--W1 would be a better place to study it.  Ca is in only 3 stands and the stands are different ages.  You should find an effect on Ca on SM AM.  RM is not as responsive to Ca (RM is in C1, not SM).

Tim: Would you know the identity of the fungi or just the colonization rate?

Tom: EM root morphology doesn’t address the fungal partners in terms of uptake capacity. Fungal networks also differ in AM roots.  If you remove the roots you won’t be able to identify the extramatrical fungi.

Tom: The plant doesn’t know what fungi are on its roots.  it delivers C and some of the roots get nutrients.

Ruth: You think treatments affect the fungal community directly not that the plant gets the optimal partner?

Tim:  There is a lot of work on the effect of N on EM fungal community composition less on P.  

Shan Shan collected roots and identified species using PCR.  Shiyi has looked at the fungal community on those same root samples--this is complementary to what Claudia did.  They can do ordinations but they don’t know which fungus goes with which tree species.

Root collection:  Tim warns about the time needed to sample by species especially in the mineral soil.

Tom: Seedlings are easier to harvest and you know what species you have.

Ruth: There are plenty of germinants this year.  We discussed beech (label now to know they are not sprouts).

Tom:  AM morphology is more likely to be affected by the nutrient treatments (less by the fungal partners).  Katie Becklin at SU is an AM specialist check with her.  Glomus spp produce vesicles disturbance specialists whereas Gigasporaceae produce hyphal networks in the soil.

Tim:  We found a huge response of vesicle abundance in SM in response to N.  Waiting for genomics results to see if this is related to the species of fungi. Would this affect root morphology?  Juice reported big effects on AM colonization and a tiny effect on SRL suggesting that it may not be that plastic.

Value of multiple species?  There aren’t many ash--Tim says it has funky roots.

Value of the NP plots?

Value of roots in the mineral soil?  Most are in the mineral soil and they have a different morphology.  (review what is known about this for the species you have available)  

Ask Shiyi for a time estimate to extract sugar maple roots.  Eva has done it 10-30 minutes per root within 20 cm of the surface probably mostly from the O horizon--check reported O horizon depths for Harvard Forest.

Tom: EM fungi are most diverse in the O less going on in the mineral soil.

Tim: We know that there wasn’t much effect of Ca on SM morphology but we don’t know about P and N.  It seems worthwhile to relate morphology to vessicle abundance (and they are easy to score, compared to arbuscules).

Value of drying the roots?   Tim says tissue density is plastic in some species.  So split the sample after you take an image.  Cut the root branch in half and then randomly assign one to the oven.

Red maple had the big response in vesicles less striking in SM C1-C6 (N more than NP).  Tom says staining and scoring is easy.  Cook them in an autoclave lots at once.  The time-consuming part is the microscopy.  1 - 1.5 per hour depending on the root.  Tom has good microscopes that you can use.  

What about seasonality?  Shiyi’s roots were all collected on one date (in August?).  The time series could be interesting. Natalie saw variation in SM structures over the course of the season--she thought it was related to species changing.  Tom: it also depends on whether you sample roots or soil.

Check what time of year Shiyi made her collections.  3-4 dates would be a good followup.

Replication?  Shiyi knows how hard it was.  Tim says talk to Shiyi.  Would she be excited to make a trip and dig roots?  Tim says you could try (but he doubts it).

Tom says talk to Katie.  

Pilot--

Can Carina score vesicles this summer?  Tom’s lab is operational he could put you on the safety list.  Someone is in there with orchids someone with chestnuts they know how to stain.  Tom’s microscopes stay in the lab but Ruth has a dissecting scope.  Tim:  It takes time to get things adjusted with the staining.  Plan on it taking a week not a day--the mineral soil roots will be different from the forest floor roots.

Image analysis with ImageJ.  Yes the scanner works!  

Tom doesn’t want to mess with primers for AM identification.  Katie can do MiSeq.  Tom is dubious about PCR showing a treatment effect.  Community analysis is something else.

Tim:  Cathy Fahey did it with giant sequoia and she’s doing it now with Shan and Shiyi’s samples.

Tom:  EM fungi are more friendly to PCR identification.  YOu might find someone else to guide you on AM identification-- it hasn’t worked in Tom’s lab.

Where to invest in replication?  Sample size was too small for Shiyi to detect differences in coils.

1. Ruth advocates for more stands at the expense of replicate trees within stands.  There are only 6 stands with RM.  Go for 6!

Hubbard Brook Critical Research Survey

Dear Colleague,

Please complete this form to help coordinate needs to meet critical research. We ask that you submit one form per major project, and include all participating personnel and needs in the one form. Wait for confirmation of approval before you travel to Hubbard Brook.

Critical research is defined as (1) ongoing long-term research and field experiments that will be significantly less valuable if temporarily discontinued, (2) ongoing long-term research and field experiments that will provide insights into the impact of a global pandemic on ecosystems and the services they provide to society; and (3) ongoing graduate student and post-doctoral research which, if interrupted, would create loss of critical data delaying graduation for one or more years.

* Required

Part 1: Field research needs prior to May 4 (NH stay-at-home order in effect) 

Lead contact's email addresses *

rdyanai@syr.edu 

Lead contact's institution *

SUNY-ESF

Names of all personnel requesting access to the site (including PIs, students, postdocs, and technicians, separated by semicolons) *

Thomas Mann, Brendan Leonardi

Personnel's institutions (separated by semicolons) *

SUNY-ESF; HBRF

Brief description of research (provide an overview of research and reference its priority based on above guidelines, max. 150 words) *

Measuring soil respiration in the MELNHE stands this year is key to the MS thesis of Thomas Mann, who is scheduled to graduate in May 2021.  Starting in April when the snow melts (and continuing until next winter)  is important to making a belowground carbon allocation budget.

Our plots are in and just west of W101. We are not likely to come close to any other researchers there, except perhaps passing them on the road.

Collection schedule (list your next collection or sampling date and other collection/sampling dates through May, separated by semicolons) *

April 18-20; May 8; May 29

Are your collection/sampling dates flexible? *

Yes

No

Please provide any additional brief comments (max. 150 words) explaining research needs during the stay-at-home order (i.e., now until May 4). 

Soil respiration should be measured every 3 weeks but can’t be scheduled exactly because of avoiding rainy weather.

Part 2: Critical research plans for summer (May/June, July, August) 

Names of all personnel requesting access to the site (including PIs, students, postdocs, and technicians, separated by semicolons) *

Brendan Leonardi (through May); Thomas Mann; Carina Berlingeri; Eva Paradiso; Joe Nash; Ami Schulte; Megan Schwinden; Sam Butler; Noah Blumenthal

Personnel's institutions (separated by semicolons) *

SUNY-ESF; SUNY-ESF; SUNY-ESF; SUNY-ESF; SUNY-ESF; Miami University; Miami University; Miami University; Miami University;

Brief description of research (provide an overview of research and reference its priority based on above guidelines, max. 150 words) *

MELNHE nutrient additions maintain long-term research.  If we failed to service leaf litter baskets, data from both the 2019-2020 litter year (which ends in August) and the 2020-2021 litter year would be compromised.  The baskets would also be compromised!  Routine site maintenance is important.  Melany Fisk will not collect soils this year for N mineralization potential, nor will resin strips be installed.  Soil respiration, on the other hand, will be monitored every 3 weeks by Brendan Leonardi or Thomas Mann (permission already submitted prior to May 4).  Germinants will be monitored 3 times over the summer (student project for Carina Berlingeri).  The Miami crew will be involved only in fertilization.

Proposed collection/sampling dates (separated by semicolons) *

June  to August: early June for fertilizing, 3 dates for counting seedlings, and 4 dates for soil respiration.

Are your collection/sampling dates flexible? *

Yes

Are you requesting HBRF housing for staff?  *

No

If yes, check months that apply

Please provide any additional brief comments (max. 150 words) explaining research needs and plans for the summer. 

Our plots are in and just west of W101. We are not likely to come close to any other researchers there, except perhaps passing them on the road.  Although there are 9 people on this list, they will be present only for the specific tasks that they are responsible for.  

From the AFRI proposal:

Table 3.  Schedule of activities for the preceding 7 years and the proposed 3 years of the project. Pretreatment soil pools were characterized in 2004 and 2010. Fertilization began in 2011.

X – measurements in all stands; x – measurements in selected stands.

2020 Consideration

Link to the website ad (is this what we use for summer intern ad?) -- Link no longer active

Link to 2020 Shoestring Summer Crew

Tim, Melany, Ruth, Shiyi, Noah, Thomas, Joe

Claudia may be available for help during fertilization (she has two housemates who may join her; they could be social-distancing together)

Shiyi and her friend (?) may join for fertilization.

Sam can be available (lives in MA).

Where will we be weighing fertilizer? → the AirBnB Thomas is in contact with has a nice patio and a shed to store fertilizers

NO COOPERATORS IN THE USFS HOUSING (we don’t know about the facility yet)!

No camping in the plots.

Sam says they spent about 5 work days to weigh (but not all 4 scales were being used all the time)

4/22/20 Alex Y’s hyperspectral analysis of Bartlett stands

4/15/20 Shiyi’s report is here

Tim, Melany, Ruth, Dan, Thomas, Joe, Brendan

Whether to send the LiCor out for servicing: it saves us money if Lindsey pays for it, but it might be gone for 6 weeks.  We aren’t worried about the instrument functioning.  It doesn’t need to be calibrated every year.

How important is the soil respiration data for Thomas’s thesis research?  Important.  

So, don’t send it out unless we find out that we can use Tim Volk’s (and that it has a functioning soil T probe).  Last summer, the T probe was unreliable by the end of the summer.  The moisture probe was also problematic.  Tim: We have always had trouble with those probes.  Thomas will check with Brendan about the T probe and whether we need to get another one. (We’re good.)

Thomas will reach out to Tim Volk and get an answer by the end of the week.

Brendan will ask whether Andy Reiman’s is available.

Safety on the field crew: If people would be serious about self-quarantining for two week before they come.  What is the most that they can reasonably do?  The other people on the crew also need to be comfortable with who is coming--this is a great interview question!  If a candidate says, “I’m not worried, I’m not following any of that crap,” then we don’t want them.

Cornell is not hiring or allowing any students to work, neither is Miami.  ESF is allowing students to go to field sites if they aren’t interacting with people.

Will we be allowed to pay people on a grant to work in a remote field site?  Ours are participants with stipends.  Institutions are not going to leave this up to the investigators.

How much do we care about fertilization this year?  The leaf litter sandwiches are out there.  The pine seedlings for AM/EM colonization would go out in the fall.  Soil respiration might be sensitive.  

Who would we have for fertilization?  Brendan, for an unknown number of days.  Probably Shiyi.  Not Tim.  Sam and Noah are planning to come if we have a field season.  Melany has 2 undergrads who are interested, and right now they are hired.  Melany may not be up for it.

Depending on the COVID context, we might come up with ways to do this that minimize the interactions among sub-crews.

We will know more in a month and will continue planning then.

Ruth, Bob Fahey, Thomas

• Finances conversation ($10K not enough to transfer, Ruth offered to buy stuff)
• How to combine species occupancy in canopy with species litter
• Sarah’s mistake was not getting the top of the canopy
• Ruth: Is what Bob collects not useful unless it’s assigned to a species?
• Bob: If we’re interested in species occupancy of different canopy layers, then yes, we need data like that which Sarah collected

But we can get top of canopy information from Bob’s LiDAR data

Summer intern options:  continue what Sarah did, how bad was that?  What’s the alternative?  You can scan the forest and try to identify trees, very high-level processing, beyond our capabilities.  And possibly inaccurate.

Getting the species layering information is valuable.  Easier to have interesting results with more data to work with.  Stem maps could contribute, do they predict the layering that we see?  Data analysis sounds challenging.  

Light availability: Walk the transects with a ceptometer, a PAR sensor on a wand (he has a couple of these).  This would be less painful!  Or get a few more stands for layering and fill in light.  The data analysis seems manageable--and REU students did it in the ice storm.  Only on a day with the right light conditions.  

If we were going to add stands this summer, it would be good if Bob could get them in June.  Then it takes a day to run the data through the program.

MS thesis topics: What is the status of analyzing forest growth and individual tree growth?  Link current canopy structure to aboveground NPP and total leaf area.  Light-use efficiency and nutrient-use efficiency…  How much more effort is needed in the field with the LiDAR?  Bob did 5 of the stands so far, treatment effects are not consistent across stands.  Well, neither are the growth results.  Structural characteristics limit the ability of the forest to respond?

 Growth Response: Noah, Melany, Sam, Tim, Thomas, Jenna, Dan, Ruth

Noah is not succeeding at running Shinjini’s code; when he doesn’t include the covariate (2011 BA by tree) he doesn’t get the same result.  The covariate is not described in the 2018 Ecology paper!  Melany can run it with and without the covariate (Melany gets the first place prize for PIs learning to run R) and it’s not a big difference (same P value for P, slightly different for N).  Shinjini used average RBAI per plot.  It should be possible to put trees in the model as long as they are nested within plots.

We also discussed the value of the stem maps for describing the competitive environment around each tree.  A common index to use is the sum of BA/distance to the subject tree (check me on this, I could be out of date).  Thomas will be doing this for his GIS class, using the germinant density data.  Tune in later!

Summer plans:  Tim, Melany, Noah, Sam, Thomas, Jenna, Dan, Ruth

White pine seedling project:  Shiyi and Cathy are interested in planting out white pine in early May to see what mycorrhizae they get.  We wouldn’t want to get fertilizer on them--Shiyi will be there to protect them (maybe a spot in the buffer).  Snow fence works pretty well.

She will have sequence data on Shan’s ingrowth roots in April or May.

No effect of treatment on AM colonization (p = 0.9)

Melany’s soil sampling:  Melany will make sure she gets pH this year.  She has some, but we should do it again, because we need to know how our N addition affects pH.  N minz this year?  Enzymes again?  Shan will be finishing that paper soon (she is moving to a post-doc where?)  

Sam’s ideas?  Final collection for 15N in June.  Sorting roots from soil and doing extracts.

Noah’s ideas, mycorrhizae?  

Summer 2020 routine stuff that needs to get done (not assigned to an intern)

Fertilization.  Fertilizer has been ordered, June 1 is our start date for interns.  Jenna and Thomas can be there earlier; it helps to have a lot of fertilizer weighed out in advance. Noah and Sam will be there, along with an undergrad. Scales?
Chronosequence maintenance and other
Tree inventory in 2021 -- we need to make sure that they’re ready for this (finding stakes and transects)
Soil pits at Jeffers Brook
Soil respiration: If we want this biweekly for a year, we need to hire someone to be on site.  A technician for 6 months, from April to October?  It would help to have someone doing litter collections.  Tim thinks there is less demand for the instrument this year. Tim thinks it won’t add much because it won’t change.  Melany says that things are always changing!  
Spring and summer litter
Add screen to Melany’s forest floor sandwiches.  Check in June to see if we need more screens.
Noah has a list of needs for field checking from the tree inventory last August.  He will manage this, by providing lists for other people to check that he doesn’t check himself. This could be done in conjunction with field-truthing our stem maps.

Summer 2020 intern project ideas

• Coarse woody debris (Joe Nash and an intern) repeating Marty Acker’s work from ~2004.  --In Chronosequence stands.  Winner
• 2018 germinant counts for survival (Thomas), with stem mapping for a covariate

• Stem mapping in buffers.  Priorities to be determined in consultation with Bob and Jenna.  Winner  Add ingrowth, list to be provided by Noah.  
• BBD rating (esp in chronosequence, last done in 2006 and 2012, but 2006 is not usable and 2012 protocol is what we used for MELNHE stands) - ask Gretchen for input.  Mariann.  Nat: beech dies on W1, where it loses to SM.  Elsewhere, it hangs on.  Could be 2021 when we go to the Chronosequence for stand inventory.
• Rocks for parent material ID, 6 chronosequence sites had soil pits (but those rocks were tossed in 2019, just before we asked Steve Hamburg for them).  Any year, not urgent.  Requires a student with passion AND knowhow.
  • Scott is away for the first 3 weeks of July (fine, work with him in June).
• Seed production
  • Red maple germination rate?
  • Seed production, Nat says to look in the trees.
  • Litter baskets (in 2016, they were all eaten from baskets) or seed traps (a few of Adam’s traps are still out there but the material was degrading and left behind small pieces of the bag material when we pulled them out of the ground) Problematic
• LIDAR status, Bob is in MI from late June, then vacation in August. Jenna will follow up.  May or June?  It’s easier to see the top of the canopy without leaves on. Bob may have enough information now to have a better idea of what we will get from this.  Intermediate--Bob will use it, but it might not pan out.  Nobody will be upset if we drop this forever.
• Moss.  not necessary, but Ethan’s passion

Site maintenance

• Replace stakes (buy white ones and spray-paint?)
• Mary will buy 60 laundry baskets
• Snow-fences + staples. This gets done at fertilization time
• Big red buffer outer edge flags
• Trees that grew into 2-10 cm DBH during 2019 inventory were not painted. Should they be painted this summer?  Is it possible to tell this summer whether a stem was in or out last year?  Some teams took notes and others did not, as to which stems were not painted.  Noah will look into how feasible this is--and how much effort it will be.

Summer planning: Ruth, Jenna, Thomas, Alex, Alex, Dan

• How many more bags of fertilizer do we need to order?
  • 17 N bags, 7 P bags
• Potential summer projects
  • Thomas and Jenna’s brainstorm:
    • Chronosequence maintenance and other
    • Coarse woody debris
    • Stem mapping
    • Soil pits (Jeffers Brook)
    • Seedlings
      • Germination rate
      • Seed production
    • Soil respiration

• Improving intern evaluations
  • Do we give mid-term evaluations?  To encourage students to improve before the end of the summer?
    • Dan: Mid-term evaluations happened in summer 2017
      • This would be best done one-on-one
      • Dan and Craig made something based off of Bennington
  • What about intern evaluations of the crew leaders?
    • Alex R and Alex Y did this -- and they liked it
  • Ruth: it would be a good idea to have broad mid-term evaluations
    • How are things going for everyone? Is everyone contributing fairly and equally?
  • Having an evaluation rubric that they are given at the beginning of the summer would be helpful
  • When would we do a midterm evaluation?  Before HB meeting?
  • Alex Y: seeing how the HB crews operate was good inspiration for how to create group unity -- they had scheduled activities for different days of the week
  • How do we promote unity across the Miami and ESF groups?
  • What Jenna and Thomas want for summer 2020
    • J: a formalized way to check in over the course of the summer is good
      • Giving clear expectations is good

• Give some expectations during the interview

Jenna, Serita, Ruth

Jenna is interested in decomposition of leaves and wood. 

Serita will send litter decay results from warming and N addition experiments, trying to interpret fungal community results with decomposition results.  It won’t be clean!

Methods: high throughput sequencing, diversity and composition.  Enzyme activity assays.  Ergosterol or phospholipid fatty acids would have been smart (for biomass).

What is the real goal?  These methods are a dissertation, it’s a lot of work and a lot of time.  If you want to become a molecular ecologist adept at the latest methods.

Jenna: decomposition and nutrient cycling.

You could work in our lab, extract the DNA and do the sequencing.

Use the tools that are right for the questions 

We are a fungal community lab,

The time in the lab is minimal.  Extract and prep in a couple of weeks.  It’s the bioinformatics on the back end that’s a challenge.  Eric has 3 chapters, 2 with the sequence data, which he worked on for several years.  If you have other chapters in mind, you don’t want to go down this road.

Is there an option with something less than the latest methods.  Not that you could get published.  If you did one marker for fungi and a few for bacteria.  Not who’s there and what’s changing.

Enzyme activities and biomass are straightforward.  Plate reader method.  Mix the sample with a substrate, measure that colorimetrically.  It’s a standard method that lots of people do.  Highly variable and hard to interpret.  Sometimes we get enzyme data that we don’t publish because it doesn’t make sense.  

Ergosterol for fungal biomass.  Need HPLC.

PLFA gives you coarse community composition.  You would need to come here for that, not too many labs are still doing it.  It takes longer to do that lab work but it’s more manageable on the back end.

Wood blocks: a student came up with a method to drill sawdust and extract the DNA.  

Would there be interesting changes in the fungal community over a 3-year period?  Yes, but how it correlates to mass loss is anyone’s guess.

Sequencing used to be expensive, it’s not any more.  A few $K.  Enzymes are cheap.  PLFA is the most expensive, $30/sample if my technician does it, but not if the student can be trained.

Preliminary data for grant proposals?  If decay dynamics without the detailed microbial ecology, don’t need the sequencing.

Seeds from the 2019 mast event:  Nat, Thomas, Jenna, Ruth

Nat: HB seeds are dry enough to not rot.  Don’t leave them in the lab at ESF, it’s probably 75 F in there.  They were at about 50 F in the lab at PVF.  We don’t want to wake them up.  Would it be bad to have them outside, freezing and thawing?  We don’t want them to pick up any more moisture than they have.

Protocol: store bags (at what temp?)  Dump them out to get the maple seeds.  Do we want the beech seeds?  That might make sense, but Nat doesn’t have any experience with this.  

The remainder goes in the oven to get oven-dry weight.  Weigh seeds air dry, maybe correct later.

Squeeze them, count the number that are full and empty.

Full seeds go into the freezer triple-bagged in ziplocs, in a chest freezer (no defrosting) for 30 days (up to 90 days).  Stratification is freezing required to break dormancy.

Soak in well water or distilled water (no Cl-!) for 24 hours, no Cl bleach on the paper towels, put them in the fridge in heavy-duty foil packets for germination.  Seeds not touching each other (so as not to spread fungus).  You can fit more in if you clip off the wings.  Make it easy to count, same number in each row.  Every day until they drop off.  When the radical is out, take them out so they don’t grow fungus and contaminate the rest.

Put the radical in a pot with soil, with any treatment you want.  She has tested wollastonite addition.  Different watering regimes.  Mycorrhizal colonization, root vs. shoot.  Document the day they went into the pot to use as a covariate.  Good project for a senior thesis.

JBM, JBO, and all of Bartlett went into freezers.  Part of C6 has been sorted and oven dried.

If we wanted to use these seeds, we would get them out an air-dry them.

The most interesting would be to compare JB and HB.  We could do JB next, pull the seeds and oven-dry the rest.  This is urgent because they were at high moisture content when they were frozen (not necessarily asleep yet).  Don’t dry them at high temperature, they will respire more and lose viability.  

Our germinant studies

Shinjini: 2012 survival.  There was a week of 80F temperatures before leafout; Nat didn’t get much from that 2011 mast year.  Helpful for interpreting initial densities.

Thomas: 2012 and 2018 initial density

2019 initial densities “It would be crazy not to.”  Then is it worth continuing to follow survival for the rest of the summer?   

First year survivorship for 3 different cohorts:  density, treatment.  

For initial density analysis: not just distance and diameter of parent trees, but also slope.  We don’t really know.  

 Maple seed germination study: 

Janerette, C.A. 1978. A method of stimulating the germination of sugar maple seeds.

Method described there:

Fruits are air dried to moisture content of 10 percent
Empty samaras are separated from filled ones in pentane (see Carl and Yawney 1969 “The use of pentane to separate filled and empty sugar maple samaras”)
Filled samaras are stored in sealed plastic bags at 10 degrees C
Seeds are soaked in tap water for 24 hours and then placed within the folds of a paper towel, moistened with 10mL of distilled water, and enfolded within aluminum foil
The aluminum foil packets are then stratified to 3 degrees C to 4 degrees C
Germination begins around after around 33 days of stratification.  95% germination by 51 days

Notes from Nat (email, November 4, 2019):

I was thinking more about seed production and your study today while collecting HB.  For the small size of your plots, I think crop counts on individual trees that you know are receiving the treatments would be the right measure. Of course, too late this time, but maybe plan on it for next time?  I would be interested depending on other time commitments. This would require binocular work on the trees at the right time of year.

Germination data alone does not seem that interesting, but if you could air dry the seeds and store frozen, then a student could do pots experiments. Maternal effects vs soil effects - similar to what Tim and i did for W1 and ref seeds. I think it could be cool.

Yes, more basket disturbance in mast years, especially the bears! Three of the HB baskets fell victim.  Not too bad, I think bear pop is not as high as some years.

Notes from a previous chat with Adam

MELNHE seed study:  completed with masses, 

The germination test: he put them in a cooler, but not until right before he left Cobleskill, maybe November of last year (2018).  2017 was the mast year, maybe a better mast year.  Natalie would know.  

He thinks beech is not as heavy as in 2017, but he doesn’t have as many beech.  C8 plot 4 has a lot, C7 has a lot.

Which stands did Adam collect in?  C7, C8, C9, JBO, HBO.

When did the road wash out?  2017.  Right.  2018 we failed to get data from there.  Maddy and Adam biked in.  Adam and a student biked in.  He brought his bike, and there was one at Bartlett.  Bikes with trailers from HB.

Do baskets get tipped over by animals more in mast years?

How to process and store seeds?

Don’t put them in the oven or you’ll kill them.

Air dry, cool dry spot.  Not wet and moldy.  

Then a cooler.  Cold stratification, about 4C.  What Natalie does is put them in a refrigerator, between paper towels, foil, stack them up.

Ours are frozen, it shouldn’t be worse than being on the ground. How long they are in the freezer?  They need at least 45-60 days for cold stratification.  Sugar maples germinate at cooler temperatures.  They start germinating in the fridge.  

If you let the leaves dry, it’s harder to separate them.  

Adam might not get good data from the samples still in the cooler.  If they germinated last January, could you still tell, even if they are dead and moldy?

Bias .  Do the chipmunks have an ability to sense which ones are tasty?  Half of the SM seeds are empty, they can tell that.  They’re taking them and caching them.  What if they use a litter basket as a cache?  Adam saw evidence of that.  Do beech seeds get cached without the husks?  We see lots of husks, which shouldn’t be evidence of caching.

Use stem maps if you are worried about a cache!

Hyatt, Melany, Ruth

Comammox bateria.  Hyatt did another analysis and found an effect of P in the mineral layer (P = 0.065).  Melany thinks P affects N mineralization.  

Higher counts in the mineral soil is surprising especially when reported per g of soil.  Can this be converted to per g SOM?  Melany has potential N mineralization, nitrification, ammonium and nitrate concentration.  She will send organic matter concentration.

It’s surprising that the three extractions of the same composite sample are so different.  

Hyatt checked this morning:  No reports of commanox in forests in this hemisphere.  Most of the interest is in wastewater.  There is an 18-year study of N, P, K addition in rice paddy soil.

Our system is low in N.  What is the association with total organic matter?

Whether to publish something small or wait for something bigger--i.e., the other organisms in the community.  He already has the DNA extracts, $12 each.  Environmental master mix from ABI, top of the line.  Better than reviewers asking about QPCR inhibition.

Getting more funding would be nice.  Publishing in the next year (tenure packet in a year).  How about just ammonia oxidizing bacteria?  They are the biggest players.  AOA, the archea, specialize in low-ammonium environments, more in competition with the comammox.  

Melany: need a hypothesis to justify the approach you took.

Hyatt: this is one clade, probably the most important.  We could look for the others.  It’s time-consuming to test reported primers that don’t work.

Personnel:  Hyatt has an undergrad who is good in the lab, probably an author, for data generation.  Hyatt has enough first-author papers.  Or someone who is good enough at statistics.

Melany:  If people are interested in AOB and AOA, affinities for the substrate, competition, growth rates, then nesting your results in the context of both of them seems cool.  Ecological niche.  You couldn’t do that by comparing it with one group.  Our sites are good because of N oligotrophy, long fertilization with time for organisms to get there.

Shoestring Annual Meeting

Attending: Matt Vadeboncoeur, Alex Young, Cody Kostro, Ruth Yanai, Sarah Congress, Sarah Abbott, Thomas Mann, Dan Hong, Rakesh Minocha, Christy Goodale

News Flash: Although we were on a Shoestring again after the termination of our last NSF grant, we were funded by NIFA this year, for 3 years starting May 1. It was a shock that we were funded, as Tim and Melany and I were about to submit a proposal to NSF for more money, which we were then unable to submit--unless we should have turned down $500K from NIFA for a 10% chance at $805K from NSF. So, funds are still tight but way better than nothing!

Updates from summer projects
Germinants: We don’t know the germination rate, this would require collecting new seeds. We also don’t know if there’s a treatment effect on seed consumption. Next mast year--Nat, keep us posted!

Worms: Cody did all the plots at JBM. Cont., N, Ca completed at C6 and C8. JBO needs to be completed next, HBM and HBO afterwards, and then C2 in Bartlett. If more time is available then more Bartlett stands close to water sources will be completed.

Canopy structure: Sarah has completed all of C2, all of C4, all of C8, and all of HBO. Next focus will most likely be young and mid stands per Bob’s needs- will connect later this week or early next to see what other stands Bob wants.

Soil respiration: Abbott has completed one round, and will get another. At one time, we hoped for three. It will be more valuable, in some future year, to get better coverage of the annual cycle.
Christy was interested in the belowground C allocation and might help with scaling--would the NEON data be helpful? Matt says it’s really not the same soils but it’s Bartlett—Scott and Kikang got similar values at the tower and in our sites. The difference is interesting for constraining the change in soil C storage.

Tree inventory in August:
When were tree tags last checked? Ingrowth has not been tagged. Some nails were pulled out last year if it was noticed that they needed it.
Matt: in the mid-aged stands, trees are growing fast enough to eat tags in a 5-year period.
When you see a dead tree, hammer the tag all the way in, to reduce the chance of losing it.

Photosynthesis: Rakesh suggested measuring photosynthesis. Pam Templer, Scott Ollinger have the instrument. Rakesh has one but warns that needs to be recalibrated. To do this with a pole pruner, ask Sarah Congress for data on the height of species in her transects. Birch, red maple, beech. After August, we will have growth data. Foliar metabolites might predict growth. What about getting branches higher in the canopy? We could know the height from which they come with a hypsometer. The next time we do foliar sampling, let’s do that!

Plans for litter 2019
We added C3 for 2018 only. Shall we remove baskets in August? Adding C3 means that Bartlett can no longer be collected in 1 day. Melany said, “I think it would be great to keep them! It improves our ability to look at relationships among variables across the stands, and to say something about age. Litter N and P responses did vary with age in 2016 and being able to track that over time would be good. Even it if means not collecting mass every year in C3, but having baskets there that could be cleaned up occasionally for a chemistry collection. I can't skip miss class for a month for another couple of years, but its always nice to have a reason in the future :).”

Forest floor change
Melany: Several of us sat together in the woods, practicing looking at the Oe horizon and trying to figure out how to quantify its depth. There was no simple relatively non-destructive way to do it. We decided that the only decent way would be to excavate the horizon and then as long as you go to that trouble, to weigh it. That's what our crew does every time we sample soils and since we'll do that next year, and then use the soils for multiple other assays, we decided just to wait until then for a more carefully quantitative measure. We also had good discussion of variation in microtopography and how to pick your spot either subjectively, or randomly, and how many reps would be needed each way. It would likely be a lot easier to mistake a slight difference owing to microtopography than it would be to detect a treatment difference.
Christy: It’s hard to get the boundary between the O and the mineral, which affects how much O you say you have. Getting C concentration or LOI can allow a correction for this.
The presence of an E horizon: we have data from forest floor studies from 1979-80, 1994-1995, and 2003-2004 when we dug soil pits. Is it less common to have E under the O than it used to be? Christy saw increases in O in the N Christy saw increases in forest floor. It was the two N treatments, N and NP- significant accumulation of forest floor (biomass). Alexis and Lucas collected forest floor in 2015 (check previous notes). When Nat sampled, she realized they needed a larger sample size (n=10 was enough, 5 was marginally significant).

Forest floor screens
Laying out screens takes time and also is sensitive to placement. It didn't seem like a good use of Abbott's time to learn screen placement and to put them in all of the soil sampling subplots, so Sam can do this while he is doing resin strips. It would be great if others are up for helping with that - we just thought it was better to do it separately from soil respiration so that it didn't add a lot of time to each stand visit during respiration measurements.

Soil pH
Melany sent a file of results to date, which we will post to the website. She said: There was some difference in the method in 2014, unfortunately. But 2008, 2009, and 2017 were all done the same way. Next year we will be doing soil sampling and should make sure that good pH measurements are a priority! The spatial variation (in everything, but especially in the type of mineral soil that we have - E, Bs, Bh, A) is a challenge so our sampling does a good job of keeping that relatively constant over time. So, you could test pH this year, but if you want to take advantage of the time-series (for instance, compare 2009 to 2017 and that is what suggests the effect, whereas mean values are a little suspicious) it would be great to wait until next year. We also need to repeat organic horizons.

Road update for JB access
The road is passable up to our sites and we have a code to the gate!

Tea bags
These should go into the freezer, not into the oven. Matt will pick them up and freeze-dry them to ship them to Switzerland (please use the smallest bags possible to save on shipping costs).

The meeting was adjourned in time for the next group to take over the meeting room!

Bartlett Experimental Forest Cooperators’ Meeting

Bartlett Experimental Forest Cooperators’ Meeting

March 11, 2019

 Known remote attendees:  Kristin Godfrey and Lauren Lucas, NEON, Andy Ouimette, UNH, Andy Colter, WMNF, Nick Moore and Ryan Stevens, UNH, Rick Alimi, Saco RD, Tony D’Amato, UVM, Dave King, NRS, Dave Hollinger, NRS, Matt Vandeboncoeur, UNH, Ruth Yanai, SUNY, Lisle Snyder and Apryl Perry, UNH.  

Research Approval Process: Mariko Yamasaki

Research proposals are reviewed twice a year.  Due dates are April 1 and October 1.  Late proposals will have to wait until the next review period.

If an approved study will lead to linked studies or needs to be expanded, send an addendum to the original proposal to Mariko myamasaki@fs.fed.us for approval.  Same submission dates apply.

New investigations cannot overlap existing studies without permission – research approval process is critical and study areas need to be identified clearly in proposals and updates.

Digging holes or cutting trees will trigger the NEPA process.  Leave extra time for approval if your proposal includes these activities.

Research Drone Use:

Research drone use requires a White Mountain NF permit

Permitting process takes time- if planning drone use this field season, submit application by April 1.

Contact Jennifer Burnett jburnette@fs.fed.us on the WMNF, cc Mariko Yamasaki

Line of sight to drone at all times is required.

The Bear Notch Road is a NO FLY drone zone

Facilities: Chris Costello

2019 Housing – send requests to Chris ccostello@fs.fed.us ASAP.

Required paperwork includes a volunteer form and a Request for Housing, to be submitted ASAP. Email Chris if you do not have copies of these 2 forms

Upon arrival, a payment processing form and vacancy inspection sheet must be completed

Rates are slightly higher than last year. Email Chris if you want current rates

Mandatory house meeting: first week of June (evening).  Topics include introductions, house rules, expectations, safety, chores, and respectful behavior including USFS Anti-Harassment Policy

Mandatory lab meeting for those using lab space.

Chris must have a list of all chemicals to be brought on site as well as the SDS sheets, as soon as feasible

Role of PI and crew supervisors:

Check in with your crew regularly

Anticipate and solve problems

Quarters money is used for updates and maintenance; your dollars are re-invested onsite

There are spring and fall BEF work days with NRS and WMNF staff; please consider attending one or both days.  Information will be sent.

BEF timber sale update, Rick Alimi, Saco RD

Size of opening

WTH units in Comps. 12 and 18 have been cut

This summer, road work in other units will be done

Cutting will be August through early December, or until winter shutdown

Jon Janelle: Road update

Upper Haystack Road is still damaged.  Repair work should begin this summer

There are 2 aquatic passage projects planned

Upper Haystack and Lower Roads

Roads will be closed during work

Timeline is not known; you will be notified prior to work

Safety

Be mindful of snags in the new patch cuts (C 18 and C 12); wear hard hats and be aware!

Please design and use a check in/check out system with field crews

Ensure that Chris has emergency contact information for crew members and leaders

If doing shotgun sampling within BEF:

Notify Bartlett PD (603-356-5868), Saco RD (603-447-5448), and cooperators

Post signs in shooting area, BEF lab and provide advance notice

Target shooting:

Still happening at the end of both BEF spur roads

If it occurs – use common sense, do not confront, leave area immediately

Report to Saco RD and Chris ASAP; if activity is still occurring then there is a better chance of resolving the problem

Any information that can be safely gathered is helpful: vehicle plate numbers, make, color, etc.

Other notes:

Andy Colter, WMNF:  if planning research outside the BEF boundary, a White Mountain NF research permit is needed.  Contact Andy rcolter@fs.fed.us

Kristin Godfrey: 

Senator Shaheen visited the NEON site and was briefed on the project

NEON will have 20 field staff this season.  Please notify Kristin of any problems

There has been an increase in external research requests for the site

There will be no airborne data collection this summer

Ruth Yanai: Question on status of Long Pond Road (Jeffers Brook Study area).

Andy Colter: work should be finished by end of August

Dave King: Swainson’s thrush gradient work planned, will use video cameras on nests to collect information

Research Overview, Andy Ouimette, UNH

Overall project to gain a better understanding of C cycle and climate impacts

Estimate C fluxes, production of foliage, roots, ECM fungi, etc.

Top down and bottom up approaches give similar estimates; forest is moderate C sink

Interannual variability in wood production related to early summer temperature and soil moisture

NPP is higher in deciduous plots; difference is greatest for wood and least for foliage.  ECM fungi show opposite trend (higher in coniferous plots)

Future plans:

Maintain NACP plots and tower

Continue canopy sampling to compare with NEON aerial imagery

Shoestring Annual Meeting Under the tent and at the Lake

Attending at various times:  Tim, Matt, Mariann, Ruth, Adam, Alex, Alex, Dan

THIS FIELD SEASON

Litter baskets

Tim proposed adding baskets in C3.  This is a good year to do it, if Paul and Melany will be collecting, spending two weeks in the field.  When we do it on a weekend from Syracuse, we can’t do Bartlett in a day if C3 is included.  Just mass, just this year (August to August).  Melany can decide if she wants to do chemistry on this stand. 

There are baskets in the Ca plots in C6 and C8, not in C1, not in JB or HB. 

We need 15 baskets for replacement, plus 20 for C3.  The 75 we bought last year are all out in the field.  We might be able to use 20 old baskets for C3.  There are 16 MELNHE (actually CHRONOS) baskets being used in the DroughtNet plots, which Matt is offering to replace for us.  That would be enough for now.

Trimble GPS locations of stakes

All the stakes in C8 and C9 have been collected.  Next is C7, which has value for crown recognition.  For the rest, getting the corner orange stakes would be helpful.  Put a checklist on the stem map.  Plot maintenance! 

Checking tree tags

Checking tree tags is important!  Much easier to pull out nails before the tag gets eaten.

First priority C3, JBM, C5, maybe C1, C2.  Old stands should be fine unless the nails were not checked during the inventory in 2015. 

Soil sampling in HB

Rocks:  a few rocks from each layer, from the potato size class (not new potatoes, not fingerling potatoes). 8 cm was the target at one time.

Roots:  everything that doesn’t go through the screen, plus a salad-tong subsample of what does go through the screen.  We scale this up by wet weight.

Past sequential extractions were fewer in 2010 than 2004, this may require more discussion but it’s not urgent yet.  Why would we want a total?  In the profile, it allows calculation of weathering.  In the C horizon, it characterizes the parent material.

Note that JB still has no soil pits, just Melany’s N samples and Christy’s power cores for C and N.  This was not the year to go to JB!

LiDAR

Bob Fahey will be in the ISE plots in August, and he might be interested in taking ground-based LiDAR in our plots.  Tim did heights in C2, C5, C6, C8.  Trees were still bent over in 2004 from the ice storm in 1998 (birches).  Canopy complexity could be interesting to Bob, as we have good data on productivity.  The crew is leaving on Aug 10, but Claudia has work planned after that.

Adam’s seeds

Is it too late to do a germination test?  Will they stratify correctly?  Tim: Call a seed company because they would know the storage requirement.

STEM MAPS!  Like this:

Yes, it would be good to have shapes for species for when this gets printed in B&W. 

Yes, dead trees are helpful.  Respiration collars?

THIS FALL 

A. Soil Texture

Dan is supervising high school students in Syracuse to measure soil texture on samples we have on hand (10-30 cm samples from Tim’s roots, but 10 from the top of the Oe, not the top of the mineral).  We will find out how consistent texture is across subplots from one stand at each site, and we will test whether pre-treatment to remove OM affects our results (we have been getting 10-20% clay, and Scott Bailey says it should be <5% clay).  We discussed the method, Matt says 1.5 and 24 hours.  We have been doing 2 hours, we can look into the timing (Matt says it’s not very different between 1.5 and 24).  If the water is turning really brown, you probably have too much organic matter.

Take care splitting the sample

B. Pre-treatment Soils

Geoff Wilson found the missing 2010 Oie samples last fall.  Alex Rice will be processing these in Syracuse, along with the new quantitative pits in HB, consistent with past sequential extractions done in Michigan.

C. Tim’s ingrowth cores

Tim will collect these the week of October 6 (140 cores, 70 in each stand).  Ruth is offering that high school students in Syracuse can help pick them (they are easy compared to real soil).

FUTURE

Painting Boundaries

Is it important to maintain these, and when?  It’s more important in the Chronosequence stands.  In the MELNHE stands, there is so much equipment in the stands that you couldn’t miss that there is something there.  HB is still painted, and JB was painted at the same time.

THANKS TO THE FIELD CREW!  

x Ruth

Links

MELNHE website 

For the password protected documents (including notes from conference calls): username: melnhe, password: Sh0e22$tr1ng (note the numerals zero and one)

Field crew blog

Google doc for conference call notes

The Shoestring Summer Crew doc has contact info and also gets used for notes  

Summer Plans

Alex, Alex, Ruth

Scheduling: Dan, Melany, and the Ohio crew.
They got all the fertilizer to Bartlett!
Sunday arrivals, by car, except for one by bus (8 p.m.) Orientation: tour of the property, when to be ready for work, fertilizing beginning with the young stands to save germinants in old stands for when Adam arrives on Wednesday. Make sure you know who is in charge of planning!
Proposals workshop? Need titles for presentations at the Cooperators Meeting.

1. Sap Flow (Alex Rice)
Sap flow is monitored to determine if there is a response in transpiration to nutrient additions. Previously, we have measured sap flow in Hubbard Brook, Jeffers Brook, and C6 and C8 in Bartlett. Most of our efforts have been towards measuring sap flow rates in the Ca addition plots. This summer we want to add replication by analyzing a plot in HB where wollastonite was added 3 years ago. We would like to add another NxP study in a mature plot if time permits. Duties will include building sap flow sensors and applying them to wires, learning circuitry behind these measurements and collecting data from the field.
Ari can be involved in making a plan (including W101) and a backup plan in case we can’t get in there.

2. Crown Mapping, confirming stem maps, focus on aerial imagery (Alex Young)
Use aerial imagery , “boots on the ground” observation, and existing tree inventory/stem maps to delineate individual tree crowns in each plot. This project will use data collected by a NEON airplane including lidar, hyperspectral profiles, and an aerial image of the canopy. Researcher will also use trimble GPS to re-collect stake locations. Accurate tree crown delineation will allow for 1 meter resolution spectral profiles (~450 bands) to be blocked by tree species, and nutrient treatment.
Alex has tested the GPS, will be getting help from ERE because it’s not working…
Marissa can work out the design.

3. Soil Respiration (Alex Rice + Young with input from Shiyi)
Total soil respiration will be measured in each stand over an intensive week long period (more than 1 time--please schedule this!!) using a Licorr-8100. Each plot has pre-installed PVC collars, and 2-3 stands can be done in one day. This project will almost solely be field work aside from data analyses.
Chase is the intern. There will be tough negotiations around timing of this.
Is there something that makes it more interesting? Combine with other data sets, maybe those coming from soil pits? Or put her on sap flow!

4. Maple seed production and germinant survival (Adam Wild)
Adam Wild put out seed traps and collected sugar maple and American beech seed last fall (it was a big mast year). There is some work remaining to process these samples (sorting from litter, dry mass, testing viability). In the spring, red maple fruits fall which could be collected using the same collection structures. Collecting seed from the traps this summer will reveal whether seed production is responsive to nutrient manipulation. There is also an opportunity to follow the cohort of germinants to monitor survival.
Donna’s second choice was sap flow. Ask Adam whether should could test viability or germination, otherwise this is a very short project (and she could join the sap flow team, which was her second choice).

5. Herbivory and survival of germinants (Adam, with input from Shinjini and Nat)
Shinjini Goswami found lower sugar maple seedling survival and greater herbivory in response to N fertilization in a recent study. Her results suggest the need to follow individual germinants during their first growing season to test the direct link between herbivory and disappearance of germinants. With a mast year for sugar maple and American beech in 2018 there will be an abundance of sugar maple and American beech germinants this summer.
Kate has the capability to lead this one, and it will take all summer.

6. Coarse woody debris (Alex R)
This project was well documented in 2015 and the protocol would follow this technique. In 2015, stands C3, C5, and C9 were not measured so our efforts will be geared toward including these stands this summer. The project entails setting transects and measuring coarse and fine woody debris that intersect. This project is not interested in the response to nutrient addition but in quantifying C inputs among the three stand ages. This project will almost solely be field work aside from data analyses.
This is a candidate project for someone to pick up later in the season.

7. Soil pits
It would be smart to have one intern feeling responsible for this, besides calling on general help as needed

8. Soil glomalin (Zhaoliang)

More about summer plans

Melany, Ruth, Dan, Alex, 

The 5 undergrad interns are arriving on Sunday June 3, ready to start work on June 4.

Dan and the folks from Ohio will arrive on May 31 and start weighing fertilizer on June 1.

Balances:  2 from Ohio (including 1 already in Bartlett), 3 from Syracuse.

Alex R will arrive on June 1, and Alex Y will arrive on June 2 (possibly with Shiyi). One bag of food-grade MSP that Mary ordered to Syracuse for QC is in the 
 corner cabinet of the main bench closest to the sinks in B9. Do NOT forget to bring this to NH. -Dan

Shan, Ashley, Spencer and I will be coming from Miami and can stay until about June 12.  Megan can join us from Boston for 3-4 days. I told everyone that they would be staying in tents.  However, Shan would love some mattress space if available. 

It is easier to get people started and get organized if not everyone is there for the first day of fertilizing.  So if we can get started on June 1, then we will all know the system when the new students show up. That way its 
 easier to get us started (fewer of us, less confusing), and then there are more of us that know whats going on when the new students show up (and we can keep them in their lanes).  

But again, we'd like to get things going as soon as we can (so that Shinjini can do some sampling in late June - the more time for the fertilizer to get taken up the better), so let us know if the 1st, or the 31st, works better!

Summer plans

Alex, Alex, Ruth, Tim, Melany

Here is a link to the arrival schedule for 2018.

The 5 undergrad interns are arriving on Sunday June 3, ready to start work on June 4.

Dan and the folks from Ohio will arrive on May 31 and start weighing fertilizer on June 1.

Balances: 2 from Ohio (including 1 already in Bartlett), 3 from Syracuse. Alex R will arrive on June 1, and Alex Y will arrive on June 2 (possibly  with Shiyi)

One bag of food-grade MSP that Mary ordered to Syracuse for QC is in the corner cabinet of the main bench closest to the sinks in B9. Do NOT forget to bring this to NH. -Dan

Shan, Ashley, Spencer and I will be coming from Miami and can stay until about June 12. Megan can join us from Boston for 3-4 days. I told everyone that they would be staying in tents. However, Shan would love some mattress space if available.

It is easier to get people started and get organized if not everyone is there for the first day of fertilizing. So if we can get started on June 1, then we will all know the system when the new students show up. That way its 
 easier to get us started (fewer of us, less confusing), and then there are more of us that know whats going on when the new students show up (and we can keep them in their lanes).

But again, we'd like to get things going as soon as we can (so that Shinjini can do some sampling in late June - the more time for the fertilizer to get taken up the better), so let us know if the 1st, or the 31st, works better!

2016 frequent litter update

Proceed with the stands not affected by the fire, plus Melany says C9 looks good. Ruth was confused about missing baskets, but samples were composited before the inferno. Melany wants data from this year, it complements N mineralization, and because each stand does different things, more stands are better. We could do that with a GLM ANOVA, and fill in the missing. For total nutrient flux, It would be easier to get it right next year. Cheaper, no sorting by species. What about Dan’s thesis, is the resorption paper better (now) than the frequent litter paper? Tim: Will 2016 be better than 2015? We won’t know until it’s done. 2015 will be fast.
Sequential or combined? His sampling design could be a cool story but we won’t know until it’s done. Tim: Most of the variation is short term, based on Craig’s stuff. It’s only 10-15% of the litter that’s off. So it’s not a big deal. It could differ by treatment but it might not be worth investing a thesis in it. Dan: We have labor. 4 students. The freshRevised proposal.

PhD on W1 and W5 (infection rates and species composition). If she gets accepted for a PhD. She can write up the respiration data. 100s of hours of slides to read. MS defense. What about our roots. If she could finish the thesis this summer. They might have 20 samples left. .001. We will reweigh 0.01. Where did we get 0.01? Not in roots. A proposal for a competition with no deadline? Oh it’s great

P Chapter. Stuff that’s relevant to HB but not publishable, like Natalie’s work on BBD at HB. Two things in the story that are new and worth reporting. The on-line book could be good for that. Without reading through the metadata.
 

Adam's proposal for seeds

Matt: Hopefully the traps are constructed in a way that small mammals haven't been tempted to predate them, nest in them, or cache in them. But you'll want to note any signs of this, and maybe reject those traps from your sample?
Nat: They will also use the traps to cache seeds. These are good for your germination trials but not for your production numbers. (Really? Are they a representative sample? They might be higher quality. They might not be from the same plot!) Nat has a sample of 50 beech seeds all from the same corner of a trap. Okay, don’t use them. Try roasting some! They crack after going through the drying oven...

Matt: Would it make more sense to cut the seeds first, judge the volume of the embryo, and then dry the two halves afterwards to get a dry mass? Once cut, they will dry more reliably to a consistent moisture content. This is more of a concern for beech than maple I think. Maybe this is a method that's already been developed and tested. Do you have a citation for the 50% embryo volume viability threshold? Is that on a dry or fresh basis?

Matt: What are you weighing? For maple, is it the whole fruit (samara)? I guess you would have to treat each half individually, since they don't always come down together? For beech, I assume you're working with each nut (including shell?) individually, but ignoring the husk because it often doesn't come down whole?

Do chemistry only on the embryo. For total mass, include the whole fruit. Get the mass of the embryo, too; that’s the business end. Everything else is too variable, whether the wings are broken off or not. At the end, she had a little vial that just had embryos in it. Most of the chemistry doesn’t require much sample. She left the integument and took off the seed coat.

Counting may be better than the total mass. Total count and count by category.
Nat: Seed sorters need to note damage by fungi, insects, exit holes, aborted, shriveled.
Adam: Rodents leave different marks than birds.
Ruth: Students can classify them into piles and you can inspect them and refine their system.
Nat: Would be interesting to classify. Could see what is preying on certain treatment plots.

It’s hard to open a beech nut without crunching the embryo. They crack open when you dry them.

Nat will demonstrate how to give a little squeeze to test for full seeds for germination.

Matt: Also, do we know that you'll get a good germination number in the fridge? Do they have a temperature threshold or any light requirements? Do beech require scarification?
Nat consulted the USFS book “seeds of the woody plants of the United States.” https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_series/wo/wo_ah727.pdf
Beech needs it warmer (68 0 F), so you might have trouble with fungi. She has done it with maple, no problem.

Matt: I also don't follow the last part about germination efficiency. What are you trying to get at here?
Nat: Are you going to follow what happens after they germinate? Adam read something about this. Nat knows what they encounter in the field, which is hugely variable. You would need a lot more seeds. (sugar maple has 98% germination rate).

Ruth: What other species are you going to see besides beech and maple?
Nat: Yellow birch seeds stick to the leaves. Ruth: They come off when you dry them.
Adam: What about ash?
Tim likes to use leaf litter production as the basis for reporting seed production. Nobody else does it that way; they report seeds/m2. Adam could use the litter mass as a covariate.

What if beech seeds fall in the traps under maple and vice versa? Seems like you don’t want them for your production numbers.

Are the traps going to survive the winter? Nat thinks it’s not worth replacing damaged ones until spring.

For analyzing the food value of the embryos, look for someone in food science. Maybe at Cornell. Ask Brian Stevens from UNH.

Shiyi's report on reanalysis of Franklin's data

Shiyi, Ru

10/13 Franklin is available, an asynchronous conference call! (Franklin agreed to t

What about the outlier? There was both a high EM rate (within the range of other observations) and a low AM rate (3, the next lowest is 6), so dividing gives a super high ratio.
She did the analysis with and without this outlier and it doesn’t make a big difference.
How about graphing AM/EM instead? Is it more conventional to report one than the other? They aren’t even in the same units!

Shiyi’s report
The purpose of this data analysis project is to re-examine AM and EM colonization rate in relation to soil depth and soil type using data provided by Franklin Diggs. Franklin’s previous analysis concluded the ratio of colonization by EM and AM fungi did not differ between shallow and deep soils (p= 0.45), nor between mineral and organic horizons within the shallow soil samples (p=0.29). However, since the abundances of tree species in the plots associated with AM or EM will affect the abundances of AM and EM, excluding this important fact from the model is suspected to have produced biased results. Therefore, my job is to introduce the missing variables to the model.

I chose basal area (BA) as the way to quantify the abundances of tree species. 2011 BA (pretreat) data was used to calculate AM BA and EM BA. I summed up BA of all AM trees and BA of all EM trees (Table 1.) for subplots where the cores were taken (A1, A3, B2, C1, C3), and divided the numbers by total BA of that subplot to get relative AM BA and EM BA.

ASH  White Ash  Am
ASP   Aspen (unspecified)   Am
BA   Bigtooth aspen
Am
BASS
Basswood
Em
BC
Black Cherry
Am
BE
American Beech
Em
CC
American Hornbeam
Am
DOG
Alternateleaf Dogwood
Am
FIR
Balsam Fir
Em
GB
Gray birch
Em
HEM
Eastern Hemlock
Em
MM
Mountain Maple
Am
MTASH
Mountain Ash
Am
OV
Eastern Hophornbeam
Am
PC
Pin Cherry
Am
QA
Quaking aspen
Am
RM
Red Maple
Am
RO
Northern Red Oak
Em
RS
Red Spruce
Em
SM
Sugar Maple
Am
STM
Striped Maple
Am
VIB
Hobblebush
Am
WB
White Birch species complex
Em
WP
Eastern White Pine
Em
YB
Yellow Birch
Em
YEW
Canadian Yew
Am
Table 1.

Then I used the linear mixed-effect model below to test the relationships:
EM/AM = Depth + RelatEMBA + RelatAMBA + (1|Stand/Plot/subplot)

In this model, Depth (Deep or Shallow) was treated as a fixed effect, and RelatEMBA and RelatAMBA (Relative basal areas of EM trees and AM trees) as covariates, while Stand (C5 or C7), Plot (nested within Stand), and Subplot (nested within Plot) as random effects using the nlme package in R.

I obtained the following results:

## Random effects:
## Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
## Subplot:(Plot:Stand) (Intercept) 0.02889 0.170
## Plot:Stand (Intercept) 0.00000 0.000
## Stand (Intercept) 0.00000 0.000
## Residual 2.31234 1.521
## Number of obs: 94, groups:
## Subplot:(Plot:Stand), 39; Plot:Stand, 8; Stand, 2
##
## Fixed effects:
## Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 0.7952 6.7750 89.8000 0.117 0.90682
## DepthShallow -1.0253 0.3415 69.5500 -3.003 0.00371 **
## RelatEMBA 1.1382 6.7697 89.8600 0.168 0.86686
## RelatAMBA 1.4631 6.7846 89.8300 0.216 0.82975

Compared to model without Relative EM and AM BA:
## Fixed effects:
## Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 2.0117 0.2815 91.9900 7.145 2.07e-10 ***
## DepthShallow -1.0094 0.3374 71.2600 -2.992 0.00381 **

I found I was not able to reproduce Franklin’s result since my model shows soil depth as a category variable is highly significant in my model with P=0.004 (Franklin reported P=0.45). Contrary to what the theory suggests, which is EM is more abundant in shallow soils, EM/AM ratio is significantly smaller in shallow soils (Figure 1.). Moreover, adding relative EM and AM BA didn’t change the original model much.

Figure 1.

To test EM/AM ratio in mineral and organic horizons within the shallow soil samples, I used a similar model:
EM/AM = SoilType + RelatEMBA + RelatAMBA + (1|Stand/Plot/subplot)

## Random effects:
## Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
## Subplot:(Plot:Stand) (Intercept) 0.09437 0.3072
## Plot:Stand (Intercept) 0.01155 0.1075
## Stand (Intercept) 0.00000 0.0000
## Residual 0.06440 0.2538
## Number of obs: 65, groups:
## Subplot:(Plot:Stand), 39; Plot:Stand, 8; Stand, 2
##
## Fixed effects:
## Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -0.05090 1.82527 46.59000 -0.028 0.978
## SoilTypeOrganic -0.03245 0.06830 30.71000 -0.475 0.638
## RelatEMBA 1.02604 1.81802 46.82000 0.564 0.575
## RelatAMBA 1.21472 1.82498 46.70000 0.666 0.509

Compared to the model without Relative EM and AM BA:
## Fixed effects:
## Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 1.02965 0.08036 10.04300 12.814 1.51e-07 ***
## SoilTypeOrganic -0.02828 0.06764 31.61900 -0.418 0.679

My model shows that EM/AM ratio didn’t differ in organic and mineral horizons (Figure 2.) within shallow soils (0-10cm). Again, adding relative EM and AM BA didn’t provide much change, and the model without those covariates didn’t produce the same p-value as Franklin’s result.

Figure 2.

10/6/17 Update on 2016 litter processing
Dan, Melany, Ruth...
Trip 3 Update

Trip 3 was run first, aiming for Melany’s presentation in September.  Some samples were lost in the digestion process, and C1 and C9 controls were done by Alex with failed QC.  For some of those samples (AB composite) there is too little sample left to redo them.  We will learn about the magnitude of error by comparing the failed samples to the ones we could rerun.  Dan suggested coming up with a conversion for Alex’s samples; Ruth pointed out that he can test the conversion with the ones that get rerun.  If the uncertainty in the conversion is small compared to the differences between baskets, we might want to use Alex’s results rather than lose replication in those plots.

Melany will send Dan her list of missing samples.  Note that if we send UPS ground we don’t get charged for it.

Trips 1, 2, 4 for sorted samples

We are almost done sorting 2016 samples.  Maybe 10 baskets from Trip 4.  

Note for grinding:  Samples smaller than 5 g go through the Wiley mill (and lose about .5 g).  Is there a bias as to what we are losing?  Bigger fibers get stuck in the cracks of the big mill).  Check some weights to confirm that you lose <1 g on grinding.  And how many samples would be sent to Melany (she can grind smaller samples) depending on whether we use a 2 g or 3 g cutoff.

Objectives, authorship, and are we doing unnecessary work?

1. Maddy and Griffin are interested in phenology of litterfall.  They have all the masses they need.

2. Dan is interested in change over time in species chemistry (C1, C2, C6, C9).

3. Melany is interested in the total nutrient deposition by the end of the year.

4. Who is interested in chemistry over time when not sorting?  If not interested, we can combine them before analysis.  This would save a lot of money.

This would mean compositing across trip 1, 2, and 4, proportional to the mass of the baskets, for C4, C5, C7, C8, JBM, JBO); HB got composited by accident. Keep AB and C composites, for replication within plot.

We are trying to remember why we chose Trip 3 for early analysis.  Rain on Trip 3 was the reason that we decided not to composite across trips for 2016 (unlike 2012).  We have the analysis of all trips for C1 and C9 controls (with poor QC), which made us think that Trip 3 wasn’t out of line.  

Action Plan

When do we need the decision on whether to composite Trips 1, 2, 4?  Let’s take care of it before the 2017 litter comes in.  Ruth wants to encourage Dan to revise his proposal, is there value to him of having more stands but without species differentiated?  

Grinding can proceed with the sorted litter.  Grinding C4, C5, C7, C8 will depend on whether to composite.  Some have been ground already.  There might be value to keeping them separate in case someone wants them separately.  For small samples, it may be more accurate to composite for analysis than to composite before grinding.

Melany will likely be processing samples over winter break.

Dan, this could affect us if we are waiting for her to send us samples back for ICP.  Include a timeline of what you are hoping to accomplish this semester and next semester.

Dan, I thought it would be perfect if your thesis required only C1, C2, C6, C9, and those were completed this semester. But if those are the ones you are sending to Melany to grind, you won’t get them back until winter break.

Melany, are you using a coffee grinding? Maybe you should send us the coffee grinder instead of us sending you the samples…

Field Plans for Fall 2017

Tim, Shiyi, Adam, Alex, Alex, Dan, Maddy, Ruth, Gretchen
Tim and Shiyi: Oct 8-9 for field work. Tim is there now preparing material for ingrowth cores in C1 and C2. Tim found the ammonium nitrate, but the sodium phosphate is at Bartlett. The key pad is not working at the lab, get the key in the bunkhouse. There is still a balance there (Dan is checking the inventory). Communicate with Gretchen if you want to coordinate overlap on Oct 8! Tim and Shiyi are staying at PVF. They may not run into each other.
Gretchen has trips scheduled for BBD collection: Oct 6-8, Oct 20-22, Nov 3-5
Adam is planning on seed trap collection on Nov 3-5, JBO, HBO, C7, C8, C9. He expected to bring some students, not sure how many (of 8 interested a couple of weeks ago). Probably 4 or 5, definitely more than he needs.
Gretchen has a team of 4 (Vizma and 2 undergrads), she can train Adam’s students if they are interested, and she could get more samples.
Adam will check with Andy Colter about the status of the road.
Nat is expecting to help with fall litter collection, and she has a bike and a trailer.
Maddy will be in charge of litter collection at Bartlett. She would like at least one helper; Adam might have someone to spare.
Whether Maddy or Nat is in charge of HB depends on what we decide about sorting.

Bags: Adam needs 170 Duro 20 bags. How many bags do we need for litter? <300.
Our students can label Adam’s bags if he sends us what he wants on them.
Adam estimates 1000 Duro 5 bags and 500 LC and 500 SC envelopes.

Which stands have been sorted by species in which years?
Litter sorting summary from last Fall:
C1 (sorted in ’14), C2 (sorted twice), C6 (sorted in ’14), and C9 (sorted in ’15)
Do NOT sort: C4 (sorted in ’14), C5 (baskets added in ’16), C7 (sorted in ’14), C8 (sorted in ’15), JB (sorted in ’15), and HB (sorted in ’15). C3 has no baskets.
2016: C1, C2, C6, C9 sorted.
Alex Y. will summarize what we have (and verify that we have data).
Adam will be sorting leaf litter from his stands, but his locations are different from ours.

STem maps! Alex Y. and Dan will be making a prototype for your review.

Soil microbial sequencing, Alex Y considered submitting a proposal to JGI CSP… but it didn’t happen. Melany was aware, should be consulted. Craig is interested.

Melany, Ruth, Tim and the whole field crew!

JB access issues: Adam will be going in with seed traps (unless he decides it’s easier to elevate the baskets). Maddy will be going in to get tea bags. Let us know whether the road is passable by bicycle.
Summer litter should go to Syracuse for sorting.
Cars going to Syracuse.
HS students: Only two have signed up, Camila thought there were more. Ask Camila to reach out to those interested.
Earthworms: Shiyi has seen earthworms at Bartlett, she doesn’t know what stand or what species. Alex Y. will create an earthworm reporting protocol.
This week: soil respiration
Alex R: All the probes are in the trees and working! Data collection ongoing. Batteries are lasting pretty long.
Trey: All the BBD stuff is done, he has been helping with resin strips, which will be finished tomorrow. Gretchen after that.
Dan: Has been helping with resin strips, caterpillars, whatever. Don’t forget to work on your thesis proposal! (Thursday, he said)
Trey: Mariann brought up the idea of taking photos of sapling with cankers, which hasn’t been reported before. 4-6 cm trees are getting cankers, which might be worth reporting.
Mariann: In New York, they don’t. They do in Maine. Photographing might be hard if we can’t relocate the tree.
Gretchen could tag some smaller trees (C2). As soon as it stops raining.
Dan: Use the trees in the 5x5 veg plots. Ruth: You can check the inventory to see how many beech you have there.
Mariann: You can just walk through and see if those are the ones you want, whetehr it’s there, what size it’s on, not necessarily quantitative.
Ruth: Something to think about for next summer.
Gretchen: I need about 7 days without rain.
Paul just completed his third time series, base plots are in for time four, then he’ll extract for the final.
Melany: If the Oe and Oa base traps come out earlier, you can do them before Thursday. Extract whatever doesn’t have base traps any more. Keep track of the dates and correct the duration.
Claudia: I am helping people this week, next week is my last week of collections, and then I will be done. Grace, Milda, Alex Y, Trey, and Gretchen have helped me. I take one extra person per day. I was in the car with Melany the day we found JB was closed, so it’s off my list. It’s all SM (AM) there, anyway. The mushrooms are happy if it rains. As long as people are still happy to help me.
Shiyi: Soil respiration: 13 stands the first date. I finished collecting root samples at Bartlett, and went to HB to work with Nat on root ID. I need to use a few days to go through my roots and see if I need to collect more roots from Bartlett. Thursday and Friday I will collect if necessary. Then I’ll go to Cornell to clear and stain. It’s too hard to find maple roots in HBM.
Ruth: JB is good for maple! Can Maddy just grab some roots when she’s getting teabags?
Shiyi: If I can come back in the beginning of the semester, I could try to do the collection. I need to meet with Nat after the roots are prepared.
Maddy: I haven’t been in the hospital for a week! (twice with the erlichiosis, then with a cut on my leg, then with a lump that’s just a cyst). Last load of litter is in the oven. Teabags, how important is it to be exactly a year? As long as you get all the plots within a stand on the same day.
Grace: I have been to all the mid-aged stands and checked the data Ben collected last year. We have a few trees to check next year during site maintenance. It’s much faster with a hypsometer (C9 took one day). I’ve been helping with resin strips. Stem maps and a methods sheet. One helper per day for C7 and C8.
Milda: Tomorrow I will analyze the bite marks from C8, which is my last stand. I’ll get help with statistics from Alex Y. We have Wendy’s code.
Ruth: Did we post the SAS and R code from analyses of MELNHE data? Shiyi has R code. Gretchen has the SAS code. Note that you have to decide whether to treat site as a random or fixed effect...
Adam is one-third of the way through building seed traps. 6 or 8 per plot? Melany says more is better. He’s hoping to get them all out this week.
Griffin shook his very last bottle tonight, extractions will be done tomorrow. Not sure when they’ll get back to Syracuse. Unless high schoolers come this week, I won’t have results by the end of the field season. Last year I used a different extraction method at SU and ran it as ESF for base cations. We won’t have exchangeable acidity. Ruth says you could do that at ESF, check methods in Nick Pitel’s paper.
There are problems with the data from litter sorted by species that will be easier to fix when I get back to Syracuse. Send questions to Camila, Ruth will see her Tuesday and Wednesday.
Alex is ready to collect foliage from 12 sugar maples. If raining, you can wipe off the leaves, but’s not ideal. Rakesh sent tubes for collecting samples for foliar stress indicators.
Alex is taking care of soil respiration next week and may go with Adam to JB. Tim says not to die over getting data there.
Sorry to rush off the phone, my dinner guests were waiting!

Annual MELNHE Meeting

2:30 p.m. in the meeting room at Hubbard Brook

Intros: Gretchen likes the variety; Dan likes living in a small house with 15 people; Shan meeting and learning, geese and ducks; Shiyi moose sighting, first ever, seeing old and new faces, talking about research ideas; Maddy being in the mountains, but not tick-borne diseases; Alex R. hiking and sights; Caitlin, a board game; Trey field work; Griffin making graphs; Milda people who like exploring, hiking, tubing; Grace has always wanted to move to the east coast; Claudia likes living together , cooking; Alex Y. contirubing to a long-term project; Paul from Nigeria likes multiple international students; Tim likes collecting mushrooms; Adam working with and meeting people. Matt V. joined late after another meeting.

Posters: We discussed the idea of having students give posters at the HB meetings. There was not a lot of enthusiasm, which was reported back to the COS.

Pretreatment Soils
There are still extracts in Michigan that need to be run on a different ICP (to get more elements). Melany might be able to do this.
Griffin is going to summarize what we have on the web site—do we have pre-treatment soils data from all stands except C3?

Flagged trees are getting attacked by scale insects. Maybe it’s a humidity effect. There is flagging on the tag—and someday we will have stem maps. So the flagging can be removed (it’s nice for finding the tree you want to shoot).

Foliar sampling: not this year
Griffin will contact Camila about 2 (not sure what this was. About the priority for sample processing in Syracuse?)

Litter baskets
Is there enthusiasm for adding them in more Ca plots? (C6 and C8 have them, since 2015)
It’s not a lot more work, because you’re already in the stand. Adding HBO would be a big effort. HBm Ca was only added in 2015.
We decided not to put baskets in C3.
We bought 75 baskets this year. We discussed what happened to all of the 345 baskets we had in 2005. Some get lost or destroyed. Lots were stored under the barn at HB by Matt, where Ian made clear that they might be used by other people; the last of these came out last year (Ian and Adam). At one time some of our baskets were piled by the CCASE shed but not used by them. Found them! In the drought plots.

It would be smart to put more holes in the baskets.
Baskets were raised in C9 and C2. Tim told us not to raise all of them, they break faster. Yang analyzed the basket data, which should not vary wildly from year to year. Look at the ones that are on moderate slopes that haven’t been raised. Some of the ones in JBO might be problematic. Griffin and Gretchen will look at CVs by basket.
Claudia will note which baskets are raised next time she does her rounds.

Trimble GPS locations of corner stakes
The orange stakes are the most important ones (corners of the measurement area).
They were put as close as possible to the point that we wanted to mark, usually within a half meter. Hypsometers and compasses have error. You can see that they aren’t exactly square.
The maps made by Matt are idealized versions of the actual plots, based on average values from a low-precision GPS.
Which stakes do we want to know more exactly? All of them are being used to measure tree positions.
What value does this have? "How big is this plot really?"

Tree inventory issues, 5x5 stems were painted last year, some not correctly. Do we track the ones that were painted? How big a problem is it? C1 was off by 20%, and that was the worst, it could be because the stake moved.
Matt has only ever picked up one stake (always the same one, C8 2). That’s not likely to be the problem.

Ingrowth that hasn’t been tagged: don’t do it, it’s not practical to go around finding ingrowth every year. After the 2015 inventroy, Shinjini and Matt spent a week, Shinjini, Craig, and Adam followed up. 4000 trees, there are probably still errors.
Tag maintenance, there are tags that are getting eaten by the trees. Put tag check-up on the list for next year.
Adam suggests orange spray paint for trees in the buffer, or tagging them high, so it’s clear when you are out of the measurement zone.

The blue stakes got tagged last year, with aluminum that didn’t last. Matt: we tried that and it didn’t work. Try a blank tree tag and copper wire.

Tim’s ingrowth cores C1 and C2. Should they be in the buffer? 20 per plot. Use the germinant plots: Opposite the 5x5 . He will also collect soils from the outer edge of the buffer. Ruth: Start at the corners and work your way clockwise. Matt: Leave an open hole.
There is plenty of room.

Worms
JBM but not JBO has earthworms. What do we have for soils information? They were power cored. Bedrock is different and they are in a toeslope getting enriched by groundwater moving up. More so in JBO than JBM.
Caitlyn is interested. There may be information from Becca Walling’s thesis, she worked just below our sites. (Her thesis has been added to our web site.)
Long Pond is popular for fishing.

Bees
C4 3 B3 has a beehive.

Chronosequence
2021, Ben Biche will be 16 and will lead the 9-year inventory (1994, 2003, 2012, 2021). Ben helped in 2012 (when he was 7) and said he would lead it the next time we did it.
We don’t have BBD on saplings, but they aren’t usually infected.
Matt: Small trees at HB seems worse than at Bartlett. Different elevation.

Proposals
Our NSF Ecosystems preproposal was rejected this year. Last year we made it to the full proposal and then got rejected).

JB Access
Andy Colter’s update:
Long Pong Road is closed at High Street / Glencliff Home Road from the South and at the Forest Service gate from the north until further notice. Engineering and the C&M crew are working on a strategy for getting as many of the repairs completed this fall on our infrastructure, but there undoubtedly will be repair work continuing into next season.

Links
The MELNHE web site is at http://www.esf.edu/melnhe/
For the password protected documents (including notes from conference calls): username: melnhe, password: Sh0e22$tr1ng (note the numerals zero and one)
Field crew blog: http://shoestringproject.wordpress.com/
Google doc for conference call notes:

The Shoestring Summer Crew doc has contact info and also gets used for notes: 

Processing Fall 2016 Litter

We collected n samples (4 trips, with not every basket every trip. Below is a summary of what’s been sorted so far. There are 297 more baskets  to be sorted.

Below is a summary of what’s been ground so far. There are 111 more baskets  to be ground. After compositing the 5 baskets/plot into two samples, we have  56 samples, which will take about 8 hours and $74.

Statistical Model:  Tim, Shinjini, Mariann, Ruth, Melany

Shinjini:  I was advised to treat stand as random, and plots as random within stands.  Treatments are fixed.  I was using sites as random.

Mariann treated sites as fixed, but now she wonders if they should be random.  Site was not significant when everything else was included in the model.

Shiyi  got advice that the sites should be fixed, and Tim asked if we should be consistent.

Tim: The variability at Bartlett encompasses the range we see from HB to JB, our intended gradient.  

Mariann: So would it be justified to leave site out of the model?

Ruth:  We often get significant differences with site.  Most recently, teabag decomposition!

Shinjini:  For soils data, we monitor the Bartlett sites, and it’s not an issue.  For seedlings, I have C8, C9, and HBO.

Ruth:  Maybe those are fixed.  They are not three random samples of the same population.  Or do you nest two of them in a site?

Kikang’s pre-treatment respiration had a significant effect of site.

We agreed that site should be in the model.  When we selected them, we thought we had a P gradient, but this turns out to be less important than other factors (elevation).  If our site term explains elevation, it should 
 be random?

Tim: Hongzhang did a repeated measures ANOVA, with year stand age and treatment. The response ratio treated stands as replicates in a regression.

Ruth:  N minz might explain the variation in respiration, but if site explained more, he would have benefitted from including it.

Melany joined and initially suggested that site should be fixed, they weren’t randomly selected.

Tim: But it’s random that the experimental forests were established where they were.

In conclusion:  Include site, unless it’s not significant, and we favor treating it as a random effect.  Is it okay to try both and see which you like better?

The treatments should be a factorial NxP, not 4 unrelated treatments (control, N, P, NP).

A mixed model describes both random and fixed factors. A general linear model considers them to be all fixed. 

2016 Litter collection

Melany, Adam, Maddie, Daniel, Ruth

Dates

Oct 1-2:  (Dan could this possible be too early?

October 8-9: Maddy

Melany can collect on Oct 17-18 (Monday-Tues)  Leave them at Bartlett.  It’s going to be tricky to get samples to Syracuse that should be frozen.  

October 22-23 (could be Adam):  could be important if this is peak litterfall

October 29-30:  if we don’t go on Oct 22

Nov 4-5: Gretchen (unless they aren’t all down yet and we delay it)

Matt last year sent us these links for resources for monitoring phenology and trying to target collection dates:

• Bartlett Ameriflux tower webcams
• Webcams at Hubbard Brook
• Webcams at Attitash Ski are (in Bartlett)
• Webcams pointing at Mt.Washington (sometimes useful to look at elevation progression of phenology)
• Tourist-targeted foliage maps

Procedure

Craig had a system for combining the 4 collections and keeping track of the ones that were missing.  We will look for his Excel spreadsheet.  He dried them and weighed them as part of compensating for missing ones.  Need to 
 look at this.

1. Last year, people noted “basket no level, reduce surface area” is not enough for us to make a correction.”  Carry your
2. This is different from a basket that was overturned and gave us no data.  Those should be dumped, repositioned.
3. Check drainage.  Poke the drain holes. 
4. Cracked baskets should be noted and replaced the next time.  Adam says  to carry a good basket to carry leaves in.  Dan says there are fewer than 10 baskets in the garage.  Maybe less than 5. 
5. Don’t collect twigs.  Twigs were less than 1 g in all of C2 2015. 
6. Weigh the bags with the litter, field moist.  We know the bag weights are consistent.
7. If the samples are wet, collect in plastic ziploc bags.

Decision on which stands to save for sorting by species:

Fresh Litter Collection!

Bags:  Duro 5 should be enough, Duro 20 is what we use for a whole basket.  Maybe have a set of those on hand in case a lot of leaves fall in one of our collection intervals.  How many do we need?

Athena is going to dump the spring and summer litter, checking for quality control, and saving bags. If she can’t do it, we’ll ask Grace.

Transfer

Phenology

Statistical analysis for phenology by treatment:  Does it matter if the different sample dates differ in moisture content?

Selecting which stands to sort:  Not HB, Nat will handle those.  Are the mid stands best because they have the most species?  Young stands have the greatest potential for changing species composition.  In the pin cherry 
 study, pin cherry was a big responder.  For 2016: are some species more plastic phenological.  Melany: stands with the most even representation across treatments of the key species. 

Advice on effort

Adam Wild <adamdwild@gmail.com> wrote:

I would agree that you would not need a larger vehicle for the first round unless there are more things at Bartlett that you need to bring back. If you are only doing Bartlett It should be doable to do in one longer day or a day 
 and a half. I think two years ago Jerome and I started early and did all of Bartlett in one day and still had enough time to do a 1.5 mile hike before the sunset. That was the end of the year collection when there was much more litter and the days were shorter. 

Craig See <craigrsee@gmail.com> wrote:

You're talking about emptying the litter baskets right, not collecting off the ground (or tarps)? If that's the case it should be an easy 2 days. I've done all the BEF stands in one long day before. Its still pretty early, so 
 there won't be that much in the baskets yet. You could probably fit it all in the trunk of a car. A mid-size sedan should be fine, especially if it's only two of you.

Use 2014 pin cherry leaf data with pin cherry pedicel.

2015 yet C2, C4, C6, C1, C7.  They haven’t been dried, start C2.

C5 has baskets now.

In 2012, we collected on Sept 22, Oct 2, Oct 12, Nov 2. Cindy was there. Nat is willing to help with HB.  Then Craig combined them by basket, without sorting.  He had to keep track of whether any of the 4 collections were disturbed.  There were 10-12 of these, and he estimated based on the ratios of the baskets in the stand.  The purpose was to get a good estimate of chemistry (not by species).

In 2016, we are interested in sorting by species, so we can see effects on phenology.  We could also see how resorption is progressing over time, if we analyze them.

Tim will likely be on sabbatical next fall in Connecticut. He could be collecting litter that year for resorption by species.  Make sure we see 
 what Craig got from Cindy’s frequent litter collections at Hubbard Brook.

Daniel and Gretchen will want fresh litter samples in 2016 of pin cherry and birches.  These will not be taken from the baskets.

Let’s pick a few stands to sort for 2016.  Those might be stands to not sort from 2015. 

September 24: (not Maddy or Gretchen) Daniel

October 7: (not Daniel) Maddy

Oct 17:  Melany, she’ll talk to Nat about HB.  Leave them at Bartlett.  It’s going to be tricky to get samples to Syracuse that should be frozen.  

Nov 4: Gretchen

Melany will work with Gretchen to develop a protocol. 

Annual MELNHE Meeting

2:30 p.m. on the patio at Hubbard Brook

Attending:  Matt, An, Cindy, Dan, Laurel, Ruth, Adam, Christy, Maggie, Melany, Kara, Mariann, Jiacun, …

Publications

If you publish papers using MELNHE data, please send them to all of us but especially forestecology@esf.edu so it goes on our web site.

Updates

Pre-treatment roots from trenches and power cores are done.  

Pre-treatment soils data still in process:  extracts to be run at Michigan when the instrument is ready.

Christy has corrected the funny numbers in the power core file and will send it along.

2015 soil cores: Tim finished the 0-10, Ruth’s high school students are working on the 10-30.

Renewal proposal by Melany, Tim, Ruth is underway.  We just got permission from NSF to add Ed.

Forest Floor mass from 2015 (Christy)

C1, C2, C7, and C9.  Treatment effect P=0.06, greater mass in N and NP, 0.4 tons C/ha/year (same as the rate at Harvard Forest).  Note that masses were low overall, could be sampling methods.  

See forest floor masses from soil pits, and consider using pre-treatment as a covariate.

Seems like it could be worthwhile going to more sites.  

Seed traps (Lauren)

The laundry baskets on the ground are not good for seed.  We saw a slide today with Tim’s Cornell dairy boxes, lined with screen.  We aren’t going to replace all our litter baskets any time soon.  Adam describe a type that Mike D

Adam:  Deitz uses

Matt: tomato cages with window screen.  Burlap is bad because the mice make nests and bring in seeds.  

Bears like to play with things.

Sampling inventory:  The 5x5 2-10 inventory will take place July 15-17.  This will improve on last year’s inventory, because trees were painted.  Maggie will be involved.  Thanks, Maggie!

Root biomass:  Geoff Wilson will be coring for roots in the rest of the stands in mid-August (for Tim Fahey).

Tea bag decomposition study:  We have 480 of each type of tea.  They will go into C6, C8, HB stands, and JB stands, so we have 3 sites, 2 ages classes, and 5 treatments.  They will go into the 4 super-protected soil sampling subplots in each plot.  Yellow flags, metal sticks better than plastic.  Lindsey stopped by and we discussed ideas for tethering the bags in groups of 4. 

Sap flow:  The latest idea is that Mariann will take equipment to Wanakena so that she knows how everything works and we could practice on her Ca-treated trees.  Adam thinks the 5th data logger went to Syracuse.  

Pam Templer asked about nighttime transpiration, after Mariann’s talk.  Need to ask her about this (baseliner assumes zero at night).

What should be the next sap flow experiment?  Christy asked whether dry or wet periods are desirable.  Matt thinks dry years will be troubled by tree-to-tree variability in rooting environment.  But if N makes trees more drought sensitive—triple isotope from Scotland?  Melany says that rooting increases in response to treatments—easy to overthink those interactions.  We haven’t been measuring soil moisture.

We still have Mark Green’s soil moisture probes.  They may not have been maintained, and the wires have been chewed through.

Soil texture:  Ruth’s high school students will composite the soil from Tim’s root cores and get texture from the 10-30 cm depth.

Leaves to shoot

2012:  Only Ca plots and outside them for controls.  We did stomatal counts on them.

2013:  Adam got SM in C8, C9, C6Ca, JBM and JBO

2014:  Beech, PC, RM, WB, YB in C2.  (that was our blitz idea, before we knew if we had treatment effects)

2015:  C1 RM, BE in Ca and control.  RM and BE in C4, C6, HBM.  BE and SM in C8, C9, HBM, HBO, JBM, JBO, and HB Ca.

2016:  Birch, yellow or white depending on the stand, both in C6.  All stands?  Or just the ones Kara got in 2015?

Do we care if we don’t get pin cherry?  It’s only important in the young stands.  In the mid stands, they’re in poor health.  

But it would be cool to confirm that the young stands are N limited and the old stands are P limited.

Note that there are limitations on buying ammunition (worse than in the past) and we have only ~1 case on hand.

Litter

We don’t have baskets in C3 and C5.  It would be hard to collect even more stands, coming from Syracuse.  Melany likes C5, where we have more information than C3.  Adding baskets to the Ca plots is easy compared to adding more stands.

There were still ~18 laundry baskets under the barn at HB, they will go to Bartlett now.  We think the freeze project owes us (their baskets have our labels on them).  Amey may have some, too.  We had 350 baskets when we had both CHRONOS and MELNHE running at once.  

Matt says they still make the exact same basket for $5 each.  

Melany wants to collect baskets frequently (as in 2012) to composite for nutrient analysis.  Melany can help with collection.  The question is whether the litter will be sorted for species composition.  Ruth wants to do it (it makes the high school students happy to sort leaves, after picking roots for too long).

This has the advantage of getting at the question of whether nutrient addition affects the phenology of senescence, by species.  Using total mass would not be very satisfying as we know that species differ in phenology.

This will be a lot of work in the field and a lot of work managing the samples.  People who might get involved include Adam, Nat, Gretchen, Kara.  Matt will be hiring a few new undergrads.  Expect many emails on this topic if you are on this list.

We are going to have phone calls with the crew on Friday mornings as needed.  Let me know if you have a topic you want to schedule.

Links

MELNHE web site

For the password protected documents (including notes from conference calls): username: melnhe, password: Sh0e22$tr1ng (note the numerals zero and one)

Field crew blog: 

Google doc for conference call notes:

The Shoestring Summer Crew doc has contact info and also gets used for notes:

x Ruth

Ruth D. Yanai,   Professor  http://www.esf.edu/faculty/yanai
Department of Forest & Natural Resources Management
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
210 Marshall Hall, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse,  NY 13210
phone: 315 470-6955  fax: 315 470-6954  e-mail: rdyanai@syr.edu

Summer Plans

These topics were discussed last winter, moved here from the “Shoestring Summer Crew” doc in April, and edited in discussion with Tim, Craig, Ruth,  Shijini, and Shan on 5/17/16 

5/20/16 with Matt, Craig, Melany, Ruth, Mariann

Herbs: 
 Elizabeth Hane directed this pre-treatment, nobody has done it since.  It requires knowing the species, so the crew can’t do it without direction.  We have about 20 species on our list. We meant to repeat transects along the subplot boundaries, but abandoned that idea because we didn’t know the direction of the transects.  Some species we don’t see (trout lillies, spring beauties are too early, beech drops are late), but most are there all the time.  JB might be the most interesting.  The sites are quite distinct in the understory flora.  Melany’s friend Terry (at U of Southern Maine) might be interested.

Soil respiration: 
Craig knows about site maintenance issues regarding missing collars.  4 times, every 3 weeks from early June.  Geoff Wilson will get the last one. This requires sharing the machine with the ice storm project (2 days/month), check with Lindsey as to who the new field coordinator will be. Start after fertilization.  Shiyi is the lead, Yang will train her on it. The second person will rotate.

Kikang may have done it in 3 days, was that with minirhizotrons?  There are more collars per plot, and are there collars now in the Ca plots?  With two LiCorrs, Adam, Li, and Yang did it in 2.5 days, 7 collars.  Getting through all the plots in a stand before the weather changes seems like a plus.  Last year there were problems with Fahey’s machine, and we had to share it with another project.

Regeneration:  

The 5x5, 2x2, and 1x1 plots may need to be re-stablished. All regen accomplished in 2011 in MELNHE stands.  Adam did the Chronosequence stands in 2012 and is happy to hand off the project (could be a good MS thesis project).  Results were interesting, beech was gaining relative to sugar maple, compared to the previous inventory.  Matt warns that without tagging trees, we won’t see treatment effects above the noise (including plot boundaries).  He talked to Shinjini about this but it was too much to handle in 2011.  Shinjini says the 5x5 (2-10 cm dbh) and 2x2 (>50 cm tall) were done in 2015, but the 2x2 are not included in her thesis.  What time of year is best?  (Melany, Shinjini, and Shan are going to paint the trees in the 5x5 in June, let’s coordinate)

This could be a grad and undergrad together.

Stem Mapping:  
Check what we have so far and where this would go next.  Pick up where we left off, we may not even have all the tagged trees yet. Then start on buffers. Use bivariate indices of competition.  Ripley’s K?  Comparing young and old stands would be interesting.  Melany talked to John Battles about this; ask him to mentor the student.

Shinjini says the tree locations are in the inventory file, from 2014 (Eli). This should be assigned to an intern.  Eli 
 learned it from Battles’s crew.  Craig will ask for a protocol. Shinjini recalls that this takes a lot of time.  Tim says we can’t do it in the young stands.  Old stands are easy.

Sap flow:  
 We have been monitoring sap flow in some of our stands to test for an increase in transpiration in response to nutrient additions, as observed in the whole-watershed Ca addition at Hubbard Brook.  Duties entail maintaining 
 power supplies, downloading data, and making sure that instruments are functioning correctly.  If one site per week, there could be results in time for the July meeting.  Past results have yielded significant differences in rates of sap flow in response to Ca additions, 3 species (HBO, JBO, C82014), and last year we got one stand in Bartlett (C6), including N, P and N+P plots, one species.  There is a proposal pending with DOE, which would affect activities this summer (Vadeboncoeur et al.)  Good if a MS student wants to take it on (or Adam)

This requires regular visitation and Ben Lee has a vehicle.  We are short on cars.  Tim will check whether the rental place he found will rent to Shiyi with a 
 Chinese license.  Nobody else is over 25.  Can other people drive the car?

Matt had a request to borrow batteries, n

Seed rain:  

Need a better sampling method than the laundry baskets.  Matt: Tomato cages with burlap sacks in them.  Bears crushed them.  Need something with a wider catch.  Need to be protected against birds and small mammals.  Select sites with species with diverse life history strategies.  Consider including the Ca treatments.  (ask Nat Cleavitt)  Beech is hard because the nuts get 
 thrown around by animals and they get eaten while they are still in the tree.

Tim says the litter baskets should work.  He has good seed data from litter traps.  But his are elevated.  Tim will ask Nat.

Tim:  Dick Holmes used traps on the ground.  Craig:  They put chicken wire over the traps at Coweeta.  It’s a pain, don’t do it.

Adam:  There will be beech seeds this year, could analyze N&P in them.  Is there an important question we could answer with this?

Spring litter will be collected in early June.  

Matt: Use the species composition of the leaf litter as a covariate.

Red maple comes down in early June.  Sugar maple a little later.  Ash is June is.  Beech is in the fall and they get moved by animals.  Birch is late and designed to blow around on the snow.

Ruth will check whether we have “non-leaf” samples in the attic from previous years. 

BBD:  

We  have pictures from last summer, we want to check the progression of the disease given that disease severity is linked to high N:P.  Mariann has a field microscope, you can see on the camera screen, to distinguish the species of Neonectria.  Collecting bark samples to measure N and P, maybe in buffer areas.  Or look at the trees where Kara got leaves last year.  This could be tied to transpiration measurements of adult trees and maybe also in sprouts.  An is interested in this.  Let’s talk to Mariann. 5 trees/plot, collect samples for nutrient analysis, identify the scale insect and the neonectria species.

Decomposition:  

We signed up to participate in an international effort using Need Lipton Rooibos and Green, in nylon pyramid bags.  This is not a student project, just a crew task, for now. Amos put out popsicle sticks and filter paper.  Did he collect all of them?  We have them in the lab.  Mass loss differences were not significant.

Coarse woody debris:  
Was measured in transects in 2004; remeasurement would permit an estimate of the rate of CWD production, which is rarely reported but is essential to estimates of ecosystem productivity and nutrient cycling.  Fine woody debris could be monitored in plots. Fungal sampling of down woody debris to make inferences about species compositions, competition, and influence over 
 decomp. Rates. Jessica was the student who worked on this in 2015.  We need to know where she left off and what would be needed to continue it.

Melany:  Most of the CWD has been walked on.  

Tim:  Mortality will give us more information.  All:  The plots are too small for this to be useful.  Could be useful on a stand-level basis, if we were to get an ice storm.  We 
 are not very excited about a treatment effect on the decay rate. Visiting all our stands (13 in the chronosequence, 13 in MELNHE) could be publishable, Marty’s earlier measurements are unpublished.

Tim’s approach to fine woody debris: Clear a plot and collect it every year.

Parent Material:  
We saved rocks from the soil pits from 2003 and 2004. We have them from multiple depths, from the single deepest pit at each site.  Scott has said that he could be involved in training a student to identify them.  This might involve cutting rocks, he might have a saw. Indoor activity. This is not a summer project, except for conferring with Scott Bailey.  Mariann knew something about the lab work involved if we want to know the elemental composition (including N).

 5/17/18: Scott has samples and is willing to train someone who knows their rocks and minerals.

Shiyi did a lit review for soil chemistry class on N supply from rocks.

Shan’s project: is not yet decided.  Might be EM community composition on roots or soil:  need to collect samples and pick roots.  Might be collecting roots for 
 molecular genetic identification of species.  Shan will be there from June 1 until July 14.  Think about whether Cindy Sosa could be involved, maybe with 
 analyzing soil samples.  We could ask her whether she wants to continue in the fall with independent study.

Other soils projects: 
Could Cindy do something with the rhizosphere soil?  Tim will be collecting soil cores for root picking in August (as late as possible); it will take a week. 

She could help Shan and Caitlin with soil microbial biomass.  She could help by analyzing DOC in the fall (it would take a couple of days to run a few hundred samples, with working up the data it could be a credit).  They have to be diluted to be run on the instrument, it might be easier to preserve them if they were filtered.  Caitlin is doing a different assay on an active fraction.  The two together would be complementary.

They are going to insert resin strips, she could be in charge of collecting them later.

Pre-treatment Roots from Trenched Plots:  We 
 collected deep soil samples in 2010 from: C2, C6, C7, JBM, JBO. Most of these have been processed; the data have not been used.  There are 50 more to be processed (as of 3/26/16).  We need better instruction as to how to do them (Shiyi from Tim?)  What can we compare these to?  Does JB have lower root biomass at depth, being a higher fertility site?

Alexis will make a demo video for us.  Put it on JoVE (Journal of Visualized  Experiments).

There are 200 root samples from August 2015.  That’s 
 200 person-hours.  Tim hopes that we get them done by August.  Ruth may have a large crew of high school students in the summer.  Rainy day activities include spring litter baskets.  HB and JB will need sorting for beech.

The development of leaf area could be monitored using an LAI-2000.  We will be monitoring sap flow in some of our stands to test for an increased in transpiration in response to nutrient additions, as observed in the 
whole-watershed Ca addition at Hubbard Brook. Differences in leaf area development with treatment could be important to explaining changes in transpiration following nutrient additions.

Geoff Wilson: Need two instruments, one in the forest and one in the open (they come in pairs) Hamburg has a set that we keep at Bartlett; Fahey also has a set?  UNH too. Matt did this in 2004, says it’s not the greatest method.  Works for large differences, like after the ice storm.  The instrument uses a 9-pin serial port interface; need to find out how to connect to a newer computer?  There are newer Licor instruments that are probably better if we wanted to publish or maybe it’s better to use the same instruments over time?

 ***NEW IDEA***  We could take measurements of the canopy over the litter baskets and develop a relationship to predict LAI from the LAI-2000.  Isn’t it better to take an image of the canopy and process it?  You need a 
 fisheye lens and a camera, and take them at dusk and dawn. Matt:  Useful to keep doing it long term.  Not every year.  The canopy doesn’t change that much year to year.  Taking the photos is not hard.  Processing them is the hard part.  We could put that off until later, like the BBD photos. Differences in leaf area development with treatment could be important to explaining patterns of sap flow.

Should we do leaf area on the litter? Tim (Cindy) did it by counting leaves by species and measuring area on a 
 subset of them.  This would have to be somebody’s project.  Shiyi could do it. We have the pre-treatment leaves in boxes in the attic.  They were oven dried.  Most years were sorted by species.  Tim:  morphology is less interesting than abundance.  Even weights is fine.

Phenology  
Would require someone being on site in May. Tim: Could we get it from remote sensing?  We need a camera on a drone. Cool project for a graduate student. Sorting leaves by species post treatment:  2014 for Bartlett, 2015 starting now. Shinjini is seeing a response to P in beech and white birch, for diameter growth.  

Tim:  this could be related to root abundance by species. Think about how to collect leaf litter for area measurements next fall. It’s hard to get a representative sample.

Melany:  15N additions?

Tim’s fine root biomass across all the sites.  6 done in 2014 (C2), C1, 3,  4, 7, 9 (2015), the rest in 2016.

Herbivory: --Kara will ask Dylan Parry for suggestions for methods.  He could supervise this if he’s interested.  Holes in leaves?  (Hard to collect leaves except by shooting, which puts holes in leaves)  Transparency of the canopy?

Tree health:  Kara sees more defoliation in N addition plots. We have it from the leaf litter.  Ruth will send this around, we didn’t know how to analyze it.

Ruth will ask Yang about posting the 2014 leaf litter data (and sending it to Tim).  2013 is not up, either.

Mushroom sporocarp production response to fertilization and heavy metal mobility in the soil: Yang Yang Foray a subset of our stands bi-weekly and collect mushroom sporocarps to track trends of mushroom production throughout the season. Continue the analysis in the fall with genetic identification of the mushroom species, as well as looking at the soil and mushroom tissue for indications of heavy metal mobility, including Mercury. Ask Matt why this was a bad idea.  Does it happen in the fall?  Tree heights:  Tim said, “I 
 would be inclined to wait awhile longer on tree heights because of the high error involved in the measurement. Maybe wait until the end of the next round of funding!!”

Microbes:  Craig said, “Would it be worth looking at microbial biomass again? Shinjini did it a couple years ago, right?  Maybe soil ergosterol content as an index of plant investment towards ECM? When was the last time 
 soil phosphatase activity was measured?”  Melany said, “We just did microbial biomass (responded to P) and enzymes (phosphatase declined with P) and we'll do them again in a year or so.  Shan is interested in following up her first rhizosphere work (N but not P caused decline in rhizosphere effect, in RM but not YB,  caused decline in fungi, in YB), maybe we could discuss ways to make that most productive and linked to other ideas.”

Other measurements:

Leaf litter:  Spring and summer basket collections.  These need to be processed during the summer to stay on top of things.  Fertilization: 6 people could do 2 stands a day, once they are efficient and trained.  Or, without the ropes, 3 stands per day.  7 days or 4.5 days. Weighing it out:  Craig says 2 days, Adam says to count on a week, weigh fertilizer, do site maintenance, mix it up and get oriented. Melany says that we can abandon the ropes.  Pay special attention to her soil plots.  She says that people were fertilizing outside the plots! Maybe use lanes for one stand to help calibrate the new people. There is a lot of site maintenance this year (deferred from last year). Should we keep the lane flags?

Root nutrient uptake:

Foliar chemistry: We have C2 from 2014, we have beech and maple from mid and mature stands in 2015.  There are treatment effects. When do we want to go all out and shoot everything?  Melany:  Get the other species as close as possible in time to the stand inventory.  

Tim:  young stands, birches?  Get beech from the young stands, all the stands have beech.

Root sampling:  Tim will sample the remaining 7 stands in August.  It’s a 2-person job, 2 stands per day.  Alexis did it last year, with help. Rebecca (Yale).  Shiyi.  Jiancun could help.  4 people could do it twice as fast.  Geoff Wilson?  Not too worried about the personnel.

Shinjini’s Germinants:  Melany will check with Shinjini on Friday. Tagging small trees in young stands:  Shinjini and Melany will give us a wish list for this.  We don’t know much about tree response in young stands because so few of them are tagged.  This would help us the next time we do inventory; it’s not very attractive as a summer project.  It’s three stands, how much time would it take to tag trees?  Tim painted trees so that DBH was in the same place every time.  He didn’t tag them.  You can get ingrowth and mortality by counting them.  What time of year?  August for future inventory, but June is better for seeing a treatment effect.  Melany is available in June.  She and Shinjini will figure it out and our crew can 
 help. Rick’s invertebrate sampling Summer 2014:  PItfall traps for larger invertebrates - it is part of the plan. Will probably do it some but does not know how much he will do - probably mid July, depends on rain. Will need 
 some help to do the pitfall traps - probably four days. Sean has not put out what he wants to do yet.  Waiting to check with Christy. Rick wants to do a small experiment to see what bugs get in the litter bags.

Continuation of bugs from last year.

• Having people sort larger bugs would be good. The big ones go fast - identify, sort, count. Groups they are sorted into are pretty straight forward. Can do a plot or possibly a stand in a couple hours. Could have data for the HB meeting if people start soon enough.
• Ben in Syracuse was just sorting the large bugs from the small bugs but did not sort or count the groups.
• Need to sort and count them. 
• Could have people do it on rainy days - Would be best to have an REU in charge of it, at least till Rick gets out of school.

More Tree Inventory

Results:  Shinjini, Melany, Ruth, Craig, Matt, Adam, Tim

Trees in NP grow faster than the other treatments. With age in the model, NP and P are higher than N and control. P makes a difference and N doesn’t! How big is the effect? This is consistent with the ingrowth core data--P matters the most in young  stands (Naples). But N mattered more for P resorption (Craig) and soil respiration (Tim). Beech likes P, except in young stands.  Blistering the bark, measurement error!  Treatment effect on blistering.  The young stands don’t have the 
 disease yet.

 Tim:  use the data on BBD severity, test for a treatment effect on the disease severity. Pin cherry, sugar maple, yellow birch: no significant treatment effects.  White Birch likes N in young and P in mid,  overall likes P. Good thing we have so many trees!  2905. EM species grow faster than AM species.

Matt:  There aren’t that many species, so this could be driven by size difference.

Tim:  It’s probably not fair to treat each tree as an independent sample.

Melany:  It’s about white birch and beech, who happen to be EM, mention in discussion.

Determinate and indeterminate, same deal.  Too bad we can’t pair them.

Melany:  The trees are doing something different from everything else!

Send suggestions to Shinjini.  She’ll keep us posted.

Tree inventory results

Shinjini, Melany, Ruth, Tim

Model: All stands together.  Age, treatment, stand as a random effect. Why not include Ca?  Need to do it separately to compare to controls in stands with Ca treatments. Melany’s model included site.  She got the same results.  (this seems better as it reflects our experimental design). What does it mean to test within age?  It seems justified because there were interactions with age.

Tim:  You could write a paper just about the mid-aged stands.  They have the most tagged trees, they’re younger and more responsive.

Ruth: Put it all in the thesis for now, we’ll want to come back to all the stands at the next inventory, even if you don’t publish all of them now.

Tim:  It will be easier to write a paper about a subset.  The young stands are a real mess because so many of the untagged trees are important to the response.

Melany:  That might be a good strategy. We talked about estimating aboveground production, either by BA increment or by (Shinjini, fill in!)

Ruth will check about a separate paper about litter production to be referenced by Shinjini’s paper.

Student Project Ideas

Craig, Ruth, Rick, Adam, Mariann

Beech mast: 
We can count seeds in litter baskets in the old stands.  Is there something to be done with the germinants next year?  In 2014, Jerome collected beech seedlings for mycorrhizal analysis.

Sap flow:  
Mariann is interested in transpiration by understory beech, which could be increasing humidity, feeding back to promoting BBD.  We have yet to see what came of this year’s measurements for N, P, and Ca effects in only 1 stand, and only white birch.  Need to discuss choice of stand and species.

Stem mapping:  
We may have only the measurement area in the old stands.  Add the buffers in the older stands, map the mid-aged stands, and think about what to do in the young ones (see below).

CWD and FWD:  
Jessica last year was the first to take this on since Marty and Matt did it pre-treatment.  More to go.

Snails:  
Lots of samples were collected, requires someone with time and patience

Invertebrates:  
They were split into large and small.  The large ones were half done, and it would be a manageable project to finish those.  Theo spent a semester on the small stuff and got through 2 or 3 stands; Rick is concerned that the numbers seemed unreasonably low. 

Leaf Litter Production:  
We sorted 2014 litter from Bartlett stands by species. These can be compared to pre-treatment data to see if species are responding differentially by species.  We will sort JB and HB first in 2015 litter.

It will be important to sort spring litter from JB and HB, because the beech were not all down when Nat collected.  Bartlett was collected two weeks later.

Herbivory:  

We scored leaves by % missing when sorting 2014 leaf litter, by species, from selected stands.  Students are graphing the results, no sign yet of a treatment effect. What about feeding trials in a lab setting?  C9 has a lot of herbivory.  Should we set out traps for frass?

Seed traps  
Were discussed last year but not implemented.  Mariann suggested that Ralph Nyland may have experience with monitoring seed production.  Design them to get frass, too.

Root sampling:  
Tim is planning to sample post-treatment at the end of the summer.

Forest floors: 
Craig reported on Rich Philips’s analysis showing greater OM  accumulation in EM-dominated stands.  Inorganic to organic N is higher in AM-dominated stands.  We could sample based on our stem maps for EM vs AM.  We might be able to analyze samples already collected, we know where they are from and we have stem maps, except for the young stands.

Wood hydraulic conductivity:  
Mariann is considering picking up on this project of Michele’s.  Craig knows people at Coweeta who do this and will put her in touch with them. 

Notes from collected litter baskets: Adam, Madison, Cindy, and Jet collected litter baskets at BEF.  JB and HB were done 2 weeks earlier by Nat (before the beech were down).  

Adam:  C9 was the only place where substantial herbivory was noticed. C7 had minor herbivory. C7 and C8 had lots of beech seeds. I was not actually in C9 but I 
 am assuming there were several there as well. I think it would be interesting to do something with the beech seeds. Next year should have lots of beech germinates. 

Tree inventory

Shinjini, Melany, Tim, Ruth, Matt, Craig

Shinjini sent slides.  >10 cm only, BA increment/tree/yr, Bartlett only. Work in progress. 2004 pre-treatment inventory, 2005 for the 4th plot.  Was 2004 a weird year? 
  Matt consulted Andy about the trees they measure at the flux tower every year at Bartlett.  They don’t have 2004, they started then. 2009 was notably low, coldest summer in 50 years at Durham.  HB W3 2004, 2005, 2008, 
 2009 were typical.  Pretreatment is 2004-5 to 2011.  

Suggestions:  Graph x and y with pre-treatment and post-treatment growth rates. Include error bars.  Or graph the trees. C8 plot 3 responded to N!  Cool.  SM responded, not BE.  Why not in the NP? She excluded negative growth, and we think those should be included.  How 
 small is good to include?  Large outliers are excluded.  The measurements on the problem trees can be off by 0.2 cm.  Things can fall off teh tree (birch especially), can things fall on the tree?  BBD?  Matt says that  > 1 cm is 
 very suspicious.  Shinjini made a list of all trees that shank at all, and she and Matt and Craig were checking them.  All of them checked out.  They  also checked trees that were reported to have grown >5 cm, which they 
 determined from the frequency distribution.  There were some transcription errors (12 cm became 21 cm).  

Tim: How are you going to use the control plots for the statistics?

Matt:  Express responses relative to the control? Before-after-control-impact.

Ruth:  Do the analysis on trees, and you can include diameter as a covariate.  Stem maps?

Tim:  Battles tried to include the competitive environment, it won’t work. In the young stands, you’ll look at ingrowth, as well as ongrowth, as few 
 trees were tagged at the start.  Look at change in BA.  Look at mortality, too, especially in the mid-aged stands.

Matt:  Should we keep going like this, or should we think about tagging more small trees?

We want this to keep going for 20 years, so we’ll be fine later.  When we have added enough fertilizer to matter.

Melany:  Things are happening belowground.

Sap Flow

Mark, Matt, Mariann,

DOE, they need parameters for the CLM (Community Land Model).  Call a program manager and ask whether they want us to link to CLM rather than improve MEL.  Preproposal due 11/13. Matt will look into the rules, if we think it’s advantageous to have Mark be in the lead, we’ll come back to him. Mark worked with Brendan, hourly sap flow compared to VPD, then compare trees, controlling for DBH, test for differences by species. Larger trees have lower sap flow.  White birch was lower than sugar maple. Should we have multiple probes per tree?  It’s more work but more robust in terms of missing data.  If we are limited by the number of sensors, it’s 
 better to spread them out. Mark has all of Lily’s data and access to Michele’s files, which include Jordan Crist’s results.  All spotty.  Is it less important to have simultaneous measurements if we use the VPD relationship?  It looks like there are outliers, possibly associated with light.  At the hourly time scale, clouds might be predicted well enough by measurements taken at headquarters.

Use the more complete time series collected by Pam Templer to test the effects of spotty data (maybe for the QUEST special issue on uncertainty in Ecosphere).  There are plenty of people collecting spotty data who would be 
 interested in such an analysis.

Field plans for the Fall

Shinjini, Ruth, Adam, Craig

Oct 24-25: Jerome, Matt Hayden: teabags for decomposition, ingrowth bags for hyphae.  C1, C2, C4, C6, C7, C8, and HBo.  Undergrads:  Neyra B., Dwight H., justin coleman. Inventory check:  All but one of them were right.  Or there is something tricky about the tree 
 shape.  Undergrads can check diameters, maybe not species.  These are probably not hard to get this weekend:

 C2- 2 trees

 C4 - 1 tree

 C6 - 2 trees

 C7 - 1 tree

C1 trees:  3 of the 5 plots need to be checked.  Craig:  Lay out the 5x5,  and if none of the new ingrowth are in there, they are all out.  

C3 needs to check the 5x5, not species checks.

Pick up tarps in C1  (Ca and control), C4, C6, C8, C9, HBm&o, JBm&o. Which stands will be done first?  C1, C2,

Phenology: Pin cherry and ash will be down.  Maples might be good.  Beech might be still on the tree.  Will most of the birch have dropped?  They have around 
 Cobleskill.  Yellow birch was pretty far along already when Craig was there.

Craig:  There is also a lot of variability from tree to tree. There could be a bias in choosing trees.  

Ruth:  Choose the trees in the car, circle them on the inventory list.

Craig:  Understory will be easier to see and less affected by the wind. Where to start? C6 is the best replicated and it’s easy to navigate.  Pretreatment chemistry was all the same. C2 is our “blitz” stand.  

Fall plans for fall

(Ruth, Jerome, Kara, and lab meeting 9/17/15, later updates)

Jerome will be finishing basket maintenance on 9/19/15. Shinjini and Matt will finish stand inventory  9/25-26.

Oct 3-4:  Craig put out tarps for fresh litter and collected beech and maple even though it was early, just in case of later rain.  Or for a time series analysis.

Oct 10-11:  Craig, Kara, and Madison got fresh leaf litter. What remains for inventory cleanup?

Oct 12 for the week?  Alexis and maybe Andrew?  Did they bring back all the FF samples?

Hemispherical photographs (how valuable is this without a summer start point?  Next year, do this in August, at each litter basket). Corrie Blodgett said:   I have used a fisheye camera lens and camera to do hemispherical photos for LAI in Bartlett working for NEON and found it to be fairly easy in terms of getting the photos. However, the one challenge was - the timing is like goldilocks - it has to be light enough to take photos, but you can't have any direct sunlight. Sometimes that would give us only 40 minutes to take photos as the sun was rising, although sometimes a half hour longer or so, especially if it happened to be cloudy. If it's really cloudy you have more time. We chose sites relatively near each other because of time restraints, but in your plots it might be difficult because of how many and how far they are from one another. Day to day variations could be important when comparing plots from one to another at this point with the leaves dropping fast...

Litterbaskets, depends on phenology of scenescence: For undergrads, Jay is available for the weekend of 10/30, and Jet'aime is available either weekend.  Madison prefers Nov 8-9.

Oct 30-Nov 1: 

Nov 8-9:

Scrape BBD cankers. (nope, not fruiting now)

Matt’s list of resources for leaf phenology:

Bartlett Ameriflux tower webcams (2016-06-09)

Bartlett Ameriflux tower webcams (present day)

The best source I've seen for tourist-targeted foliage maps.

Field plans for week of Aug 24

On Aug 21, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Fisk, Melany <fiskmc@miamioh.edu> wrote:

C4 and C5 soil microbial processes (Nmin, respiration, etc) are consistent among plots and not wildly different than other stands or anything else strange.  C4 is much easier to work in!  It is hard to find soil in C5. It is like a boulder field covered with a little detritus.  30 cm might be very difficult to find in C5.  

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Timothy James Fahey <tjf5@cornell.edu> wrote:

We’re just exploring. I’m now thinking we should do C1, C4, C6 ,C7 and C9 this year. Possibly substitute C5 for C4 – there are a couple of glitches in the C5 pre-treatment root biomass but nothing too serious. I don’t know 
 anything about C4 and C5 so advice is needed. I now prefer the plan of doing three age classes with two reps from each age.

From: Fisk, Melany [mailto:fiskmc@miamioh.edu]

Which end of the TSR vs Nmin gradient are you trying to capture?  Treatments reduce roots, increase roots, or both?   I like C7.  I don't remember the 
 data exactly but I am guessing it was on the lower TSR in response to 
 treatments end.  C6 or C9 might get you on the other end.  I don't know 
 where C3 falls.  But Tim should be able to figure out from his graphs?  

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ruth D Yanai <rdyanai@syr.edu> wrote:

c2 was done last year.  What’s next best after C1, C2, C4?  (C6, C8, C9). How about C6 and C9 and include the Ca plot?   Or is it C8 that has the Ca plot?

On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Melany Fisk <fiskmc@miamioh.edu> wrote:

How about c2?

Maybe c6 is fine.  C6 and c9 are always outliers on nutrients, in a couple of plots but not others.  And root growth in ingrowth cores in c6 didn't respond to nutrients.  I can't remember which plot it was that we used for them ( this was pretreatment).  So, would not responding to local additions mean less likely to respond to plot scale addition?  Maybe not, but it seemed consistent with the relatively high n min and resinP that we measured there.  

Field plans for August

Yang, Ehren, Ruth

Ehren - arrival by morning of Aug 5.  Leave stuff at Yang’s. Adam is shooting for Pam and others on Aug 3 and 4.  He has to go back to Cobleskill for Aug 5-6.  

Yang:  Leave from ESF to HB at August 5, BBWM August 6-7, HB August 8,9,10 (one day depends on Adam’s schedule), Sleepers River (VT) August 11, Huntington 
 (NY) August 12 and 13. Two vehicles, Yang and Kara each get one.  

August 6:   Yang and Ehren leave to HB for one night sleeping.

 August 7 and 8 from HB to BBWM (4.5 hrs) for Yang and Ehren, we may need to camp for a night (ask for camp location)?  Kara--August 8-15.  Kara will invite Madison, Ryan, and Max. Probably Panmei. August 9 or 10 for HB - Adam, Kara, Ehren, Yang. August 11 to Sleepers River from HB (1.3hrs)--Adam, Ehren, Yang; JB--Kara

August 12, 13 for Huntington- Adam, Ehren, Yang; August 12-14 for Bartlett--Kara

August 17-21: MELNHE sampling (Ehren, Alexis,...     )

Yang’s Hg exptl design:  4 sites, 2-3 conifers and 2-3 hardwoods/site, 9 reps (bulked for chemistry).  21*9=189 trees.

Kara’s resorption exptl design: If Kara gets 2 species in each of 10 stands, 5 plots (only 4 plots in 3 stands), 3 reps, ~300 trees!

Ehren’s fungal expt.: Technique - probably DGGE (denatured gradient gel electrophoresis), unless grants allow next-gen. - - phyllosphere & soil samples (1 grouped sample per sample-type (leaf, soil) per tree = 2 bulked samples/tree) following Yang’s sample size & species ask Dr. Horton about # of soil samples needed to accurately represent one dripline community (for mycorrhizal & free-living fungi)

Aug 12-16 Ehren finds a place to live in Syracuse send ImageJ protocol to Kara send proposal to Ruth by 07/24 send a list of materials (Corer, bags) to Yang (along with 07/24 proposal)

Aug 17:  Sampling effort previously scheduled for August 24. Jerome will leave NH on Aug 1 and return on Aug 23 (does he need to return?  Maybe not)

LTREB: Melany: there should be a story, Tim: we would be competitive as a standard grant. Ask if it’s more or less competitive (how many were funded).  There are 
 already two at HB.

Which trees to sample?  Kara, Tim, Melany, Ruth

We have pre-treatment foliage from 12 stands (not C3). Melany is concerned about the variation from tree to tree. We are shooting the same trees every time, so we are controlling for some of that. We have 2-3 years for pre-treatment foliar chemistry, so Kara could look at 
 how different the trees are and how consistent they are over time. Tim votes for bulking.  If you had a million dollars, you would analyze every tree. You could shoot more trees and mix them all together.  This doesn’t take 
 advantage of the time series.  Let’s look at the time series!  This would fit well in Yang’s paper on tissue chemistry. Species:  Craig weighted the dominant species by litter mass, but I don’t know. Beech is the most consistent across the age classes. Shinjini had something about growth efficiency and P concentration.

Tim suggests birch and maple (paper or yellow) (red or sugar).  Beech might be smart to do also. There isn’t red maple in C1.  (Trees shot pre-treatment were not big enough to be tagged yet.) Kara needs to find out what litterfall chemistry data we have. 

Resorption: Kara, Craig, Ruth

How to allocate sampling effort?  

Fewer species, more stands, would be better for Kara’s chances of getting a treatment effect and also for us to evaluate the progression of treatment effects (the “preliminary results” model).  In some year, will we shoot all the species in all the stands?  Certainly not until we get more money. Craig suggested putting out baskets to get litter from a specific tree, we could sample just one tree per stand.  Sasha Reed (2012 or 2013) did this, 
 but in a tropical forest, where there may be fewer conspecifics near a particular basket.

There is no loss to the statistical analysis of combining the three replicate trees before analysis; they were averaged before the analysis. Compositing saves 2/3 of the time and cost of tissue analysis.  Except that 
 the three trees should be ground separately and kept for posterity. The value of pre-treatment data:  Craig knows which plots had higher resorption than others.  For example, C8-3! Besides the stands Craig used, we have green leaves and leaf litter for JB and HB.  We do not have pretreatment leaves in C3, C5, C7. Beech is the only species in all of the stands.  Craig says that yellow 
 birch is the most responsive.  Kara needs to see the list of what was shot. Species aren’t always present in all the lots.  Check the pretreatment data on litter, too.

3 trees/plot, 4 plots/stand, 2 HB, 2JB, 6 Bartlett = 120 trees to shoot, 40 samples to analyze, plus 40 for litter. 

Craig did the most important species in each plot, and weighted by the litterfall mass.  How important was that?  He would have had the same conclusions if he had only one or two species?

Annual  MELNHE Meeting

3 p.m. on the patio at Hubbard Brook

Attending:  Jerome, Ruth, Tim, Mariann, Christy, Aaliyah, Matt.

I.  Discussion topics

Root coring (Tim). In 2014, Tim collected 10 cores per plot in C2, and found the NP plot had more root biomass than the control.  Before treatment, it was the other way around, control was the highest. Respiration was low in the NP plot in C2 in 2013, that’s why Tim picked C2 (the Blitz).  It’s hard to know if this is due to root redistribution, because it’s hard to get roots from deeper in the profile. C1, C2, and C4 had the greatest declines in soil respiration. Plans for 2015:  Core C1 and C4.  We don’t like C3.  C2 was cored last year. Alexis will be coming in September for ingrowth cores in the ice-storm project, she could core then.  Normally Tim cores in mid-August.  Our crew leaves on Aug 7.  Jerome is going to a meeting earlier in August but could be available in mid-August. 
It would take a week to core all 13 stands.  This could be a waste if there is not a response.  

See the Field Plan below!

Soils
Christy: at what point is it worth looking for a change in SOM, if this were due to changes in decomposition? If Tim’s respiration is 7 Mg/ha/yr, with a 30% effect, linear over time for 5 years, this would amount to 5-6 Mg/ha, of a total of 23 Mg/ha (in other sites cored by Christy).  In the 0-10 cm depth, 37 Mg/ha. C1 and C2 were sampled by Laurie Taylor in the 1990s, using Federer pin blocks.  We can’t use this for pretreatment differences in our plots because the lines don’t correspond to the plots. In 2004, soil pits in 3 plots, the 4th plot got done in 2010. The greatest value to doing it now might be that it’s a 5-year measurement that we could use to compare to future measurements. Christy will consider doing 15 x 15 forest floor blocks, maybe 0-10 cm with a core, maybe in JB and HB where there are comparable power core data from 2010.  

Field Plan
Week of Aug 24:  Alexis, Andrew, Jerome, maybe Panmei and Ehren.  Ruth could make an offer to high school students.  Collect soils and root cores in C1, C2, C4, HBm, HBo, JBm, JBo.  Ask Eli how long it took him to core C2. Can they do 7 stands in one week?  Need a conference call to plan the details.

Leaves
Adam will shoot leaves, we need to tell him how many days we want him for.  Scott Ollinger will also be shooting; have Scott tell Adam whether we also need W1.
Who will collect fresh litter and when?  Last year we got September and October, and Kara found the October samples to be more useful. Alexis could help with litterfall collection when she goes in October.

Litterfall
We do not have litter baskets in the wollastonite plots.  W1 had an LAI response.  Start with C6 and C8, where we have sap flow.  JBo has a lot of sugar maple but they are in good shape; there was no response at the bottom of W1.  C6 doesn’t have much SM in the control plot. We don’t have baskets in C3 or C5.  The plots aren’t well replicated in C3, with uneven red maple.  The moose strip the bark of the red maple and they are not in good condition (and difficult for DBH). Last year Nat did JB and HB for us.  Jerome and Adam did Bartlett in one day, and those went into freezers.  It would be good to have a plan for getting JB and HB into freezers so we can sort them.  Do we have enough freezers?  Give us an inventory of freezer space at Bartlett.

Soil Texture
Ruth’s high school students can do this at ESF almost for free.  Order the surfactant, or ask Mariann (or Chuck).  Matt picks a standard depth and does replicates within plot.  For some reason, the soils from the quantitative pits were composited before analysis, probably because of the soils available outside of the archive. Ruth will ask Griffin for an inventory of what samples we have (saved from root picking). Christy has a total of 480 samples from power coring 6 stands. Matt recommends the deepest sample so you don’t have to use peroxide to get rid of the SOM. The USFS protocol has a maximum C concentration that can be done without treatment. Christy: HBo wins the C sweepstakes, while JBo-1 is high in N.  Matt says it has a groundwater seep and that Tim selected that plot…  There is a huge variation in Christy’s data set, which is why she asked about texture.

II.  Updates  from the field crew in Bartlett
Sapflow (Brigid, Isaac, Jessie, Nick)

• Currently running in site C6, all plots but Ca.  Need to troubleshoot in Ca.  Pam Templer’s group has experience to share.
• After getting 5 sunny days at C6, move to site C8 for the remainder of the season.
• New data loggers and multiplexers arrived in Bartlett.  Thanks, Tim and Matt!
• Need heater boards. Jose at UNH can train on this, we need to make contact.

Decomposition (Matt H., Rick B.)

• Two of Rick’s decomposition experiments have been collected from Bartlett.
• There was barely any filter paper left in most bags, but treatment effects look significant.
• Depth and mesh size experiment  was also collected, need pretreatment data (mass, micron size, etc.)
• Tea bags will be  extracted at 1, 2, 4, and 16 weeks.  Who is responsible for the final extraction (October 23rd- coincide with fall collections or foliage sampling)?.

BBD (Aaliyah J., Mariann J.)

• Photographs will be taken in all stands and added to those take in 2012.
• Bole and crown assessment has been completed in C2 and C4, C3 in progress.  JBO and JBM are next.
• Analyze a subset of pictures to test for treatment effects.

Soil N Mineralization (Caitlin H.)

• First round of soil coring and extraction completed, sent to Miami U. for analysis
• Next round of coring slated for Friday 7/10.
• KCl needs being discussed with Melany, maybe save soils for extractions this fall.

Soil Respiration in Ca plots (Tyler S.)

• First round of respiration completed, C1, C2, C4 in entirety to go with Tim’s root coring, C6 and C8 Ca and control plots). HB and JB were dropped after the first collection date due to weather conditions and having to share the Licor with the ice storm crew (Jeff Schwaner). 
• Goal is four rounds of soil respiration measurements before the end of the summer.
• Root screens went in at C1, C6, and C8 Ca and control plots near the respiration collars.  3 weeks is up soon, should he replace the screens for another incubation (or two)?
• Microbial respiration will be analyzed from pooled soil samples collected in the next two weeks. Need BaCl, HCl, and phenophthalein.  If not, he can use Melany’s data from last year.

Woody Debris (Jessica S.)

• Protocol developed and tested for CWD and FWD. Modified from Marty Acker’s (CWD) and Matt V’s (FWD) protocols.
• CWD and FWD measurements started in C2 and C7.  C1, C2, C4, C6, C7, C8\
• Sampling intensity for FWD is 1 plot 4 m^2.

Aspen Mycorrhizae (Jalina P., Austin F.)

• Roots were collected from buffers of plots with aspen:  C4-1(NP), 2 (N), and control. Two roots per tree, four trees per plot.
• Trees are identified by DBH and distance and direction to nearest corner post.
• Roots were weighed and scanned back in the lab.  But they have been in water for a week, is that okay?
• Protocol for analysis under discussion with Tom, but roots will be processed using a hot water bath at HB (clearing and staining) unless it’s worth finding an autoclave.  They can’t be shipped if they are in alcohol.

Seedling Bags for Hyphal Ingrowth (Jerome, Tom, Ruth)

• Large seedling ingrowth bags (15cm x 20cm) were  filled with autoclaved quartz sand. ” chicken wire cage coverings to minimize seed losses to small mammals.  40 um mesh (silkscreen supplies from the art store). This design didn’t work because the sand ended up at the bottom of the bag.  When is it too late to start seed this year?  Tim suggests talking to Melany.
• Small hyphal ingrowth bags (8.5cm x 8.5cm) completed, filled with 27 g of autoclaved quartz sand.
• Small ingrowth bags will  be placed at interface of organic and mineral soil in four treatment plots of C1, C2, and C4 to coincide with Tim Fahey’s root coring efforts this fall. Will track soil respiration this season and next season in the plots. Core soils for microbial respiration extraction this summer?
• Large seedling bags to be placed in all five-treatment plots of sites C8 and HBO, four plots at C7 (seedlings won’t survive in shadier stands).
• A few bags will be pulled in late October to check for hyphal ingrowth. Remainder of bags will be pulled in October 2016.

 Tree Inventory (Shinjini)

• Scheduled for early August.  We think they are planning to do the sapling plots.

More Projects This Summer

• pH taken from all treatment plots and stands, or a subset of stands that will aide in data analysis for several projects (hyphal ingrowth, respiration, N mineralization…..). pH meter?
• Soil water extracts from all treatment plots and stands or a subset of stands (Matt H. still interested in this for a senior project back in Syracuse, pointed question can be developed).
• Stem mapping of buffers of old stands (most useful for adding trees).  Matt says we should tag trees used for sapflow. Brigid knows what they look like (Panmei).  
• Mushroom foray in a subset of stands. Old and mid stands? A proposal has been worked on by Jalina, Austin, Jessica, and Jerome. May need to incorporate hypogeous sporocarp surveys. Could work into the mercury in mushrooms project slated for August with Yang and Jerome.
• Joel and Melany’s ingrowth cores.  Coordinate with Jerome to save some roots for mycorrhizal analysis.

Data documentation
We wondered if we could put Nick in charge of collecting people’s data sets.  In previous years, we introduced the protocol for data documentation earlier in the season.

III.  Updates from the lab crew in Syracuse

We have high school students, more than we expected, so let us know if you have things you would like them to do. Sap flow sensors:  We made about 125 reference and 90 heater sensors.  We have supplies for only 10 more sensors.  This activity will end next week unless we should make more for next year. Roots and Soils:  Fahey’s pretreatment root samples, manual (PVC) cores collected in 2010, were completed this year, after many years and many people and much confusion.

Half pits from the 4th plots in 2010: 22 samples remain to be processed.
Roots from trenches: Soil samples were collected from trenches in 2010 to pick for roots (30-50 and 50+): 95 remain to be processed
Texture:  We can get texture from samples collected for root picking, after we dry and sieve them.  We will record the coarse fraction weight, too.
Leaf Litter 2014:  HB and JB were collected by Nat (thanks!) and dried without sorting.  We don’t know where the data or the samples are for HBM.  In Syracuse, C1, C2, and C9 were done first, selected to look for treatment effects.  Then we started scoring herbivory.   We did C9 after the leaves were dried, which was not ideal.  C6 and C8 were partially sorted and dried.  Now we are scoring C7 before we dry.  C3 and C5 don’t have baskets?  ~50 bags to go.
Spring 2015 litter will be sorted because we never do, and probably we should be counting this mass as beech rather than distributing it according the October species composition.
Other:  Abby might teach someone to identify snails. Rick, do you want us to work on soil microarthropods?

Papers
Kikang Bae, Adam Wild, and Craig See’s thesis papers were published this year.  Find them on our web site (when the password is fixed).
Tim submitted a paper on respiration post-treatment.

Proposals
Sap flow pre-proposals were submitted to NSF in Jan 2013, 2014, and 2015.  We made it to the full proposal stage in 2014.  Mark Green initially led these, now Vadeboncoeur.  With Horton, Yanai, Abjornsen, Pruyn.
LTREB:  Yanai, Fisk, Fahey, preproposal rejected in 2015.  Will try again.

BBD

Ehren, Mariann, Ruth

Mariann will send us the recent Cale paper in FEM on beech nutrition and BBD, along with the proposal that funded the work (useful for background and references).

Ehren was interested in the spatial diversity of organisms in the phyllosphere: what part of the crown, different radiation or microclimate. This question is not specific to BBD. 

Mariann was interested in what neonectria was doing before the beech scale came along.  John Castello had someone collect bark samples from down south 
 out of the range of BBD, and didn’t find any neonectria in them.  

Is it interesting to look at microbial communities in wood?  Ehren says they differ by tissue type.

Host genetics matters, and lots of beech originate from root sprouts.

Is the scale a vector for the fungus?  Well, the fungus was already here, the scale is exotic.

Population dynamics, killing front, advancing front, aftermath forest. Trees become susceptible at 10 cm dbh.  Some are resistant. There is a listserve for forest pathology, share the link if you have it.

There are two neonectria species that look alike on the tree; you can tell them apart microscopically.  One of them is an annua canker on beech but perennial on other species. 

Ehren asked about time of sampling.  Fruiting bodies show up in Sept-Oct. Bark samples were collected in July and August because of the constraints of the academic year.  

Store frozen for DNA at -20.  Plating out fresh is the alternative, Ehren hasn’t done that, and it sounds harder logistically.

Ruth suggests that analyzing organisms on trees of multiple species from multiple sites (Yang’s Hg project); which is a better predictor, site or species?  Ehren: Host genetics explains more than geography for beech in 
 Europe.  

Woody Debris

Jessica, Matt, Ruth, and Tim

Depth

Matt: In the soil pits, we accounted for coarse organic matter that didn’t go through the 6 mm sieve. This was an improvement over forest floor methods that exclude twigs.

Ruth:  If a leaf falls on top of a twig and we don’t count it, we’re missing them.

Matt:  The Ollinger group uses a 2 m x 2 m tarp (landscaping fabric) and collects what’s on top.

Tim:  We just cleared a plot, and collected material > 2 cm.  Smaller than 2 cm we got in the litter traps.

Jessica:  7.5 mm

Should we put down a tarp?  It won’t be hard in future years to know what to collect, after old ones have been removed.

Jessica:  From the perspective of an intern, I have no idea what the current year’s leaf litter looks like.

In the future it won’t matter for identifying what came down.

Tim: it could be hard to get the tarp to lay flat.  There could be stems in the way. Okay, never mind the tarp. The biggest woody litter input is in the winter.  So this time of year, most of it will be on top. How deep to sample?  Consistency will be important.  Jessica will do the FWD; she will get help with the CWD transects.

Height

Does it have to be touching the ground to be collected?  If it’s leaning into the plot, we cut it off. Cindy did this, most years.  Tim thinks she collected anything that was convenient to collect. Matt and Marty talked about this.  The collected what they could reach, which they called 2.5 m. There was a blowdown in T20, with boles in a pile.  They might or might not be touching the ground at the point of intersection.  Marty used the 45 degree rule.  If it’s closer to down than upright, it’s CWD.  But not if 
 it’s higher than you can reach. They tried to apply the same rules to the transects and the plots.  There 
 was a branch hung up, and they collected it because they could reach it. You’re going to need a plumb bob (they used clippers on a piece of string).

Mortality and closing the budget

Tim:  Be aware of the issue of double counting tree mortality and branch fall.  

Matt:  Marty and I were more interested in pools than fluxes.  We took notes on snags.

Tim:  Siccama’s protocol uses classes of snags and they translate into fractions of the bole for biomass calculations.

Ruth:  Would it work to not count dead things as productivity until they fall down?

Tim, Matt:  It decays on the way down.

Tim:  This and buried wood are the biggest problems in the C budget at HB. The snag stump problem is within 10%.  CWD becomes buried wood and we have no basis for calculating the flux.

Transects

Jessica:  Jerome asked if we should use a hypsometer instead of a tape. Matt has one, which he will bring next week for stem mapping.  Running a tape over rough terrain will not be perfectly accurate or reproducible.  A 
 hypsometer might get your transect to exactly 20 m.  

The distance from the center to the corner stake is 21.2 m (15 * 2^.5).  You can record to the end of the measurement area, you don’t need a buffer to the buffer.

What about the center?  Starting all the transects at the center would oversample the center.  And there’s a litter basket there.  Assume that the stakes are correct, that will be more accurate than a tape (the stakes were 
 surveyed using horizontal distance).

The diagonals intersect the other litter baskets.  CWD has been removed from the baskets over time.  So you might want to exclude this portion of the transect from your data analysis.  You could do the same at the center.

Record the actual location of the basket, rather than calculate where you think it should be.  They can’t always be located exactly where they were supposed to be (usually due to rocks). 

Measurements will be systematically taken from the corner posts, with zero at the corner.  

Tags

What’s the value of tagging them?  What is less time consuming? Monitoring the progress of decay classes over time. Putting extra trash in the plots if we don’t think we’re going to use it. There is a lot of value of knowing that a tag on the ground means that a 
 tree came down.  Tags in CWD are going to move around.

Is it too late now to go back to the Chronosequence and assess decay classes?  They were tagged in 2004.  We should do it in a year when we are remeasuring the Chronosequence.  If there were time at the end of the 
 season, you could check some of Marty’s transects (pick ones with big logs on them) and see if they can still be found.  Choose ones in Bartlett.

Priority list

First C1, C2, C4, C6, C8, C9.  What about HB and JB?  Do those when you are very practiced so you know the 
 right size crew to take and how much you can get done in a day (e.g. bringing an extra person so you can finish in one day instead of 1.2 days).

Decomposition
Matt Hayden, Rick, Ruth

1. Rick’s litter bags have all been collected.  The third and last collection is air dried but not weighed.  He also needs to find time for data analysis.  It’s a complicated design (mesh size, litter species, 
    treatment effects, stand age (C1, C2, C7, C9).  Large mesh went slower.  Young stand mix went faster.  Incubated in the old stands goes faster.  Tulgren 
    funnels on the last extraction to compare bugs in small and large mesh bags.  Ancillary experiment with beech leaves from young and old stands.  Two of five collections in C4, Rick can invite someone to go with him; it’s quick.
2. Filter paper, Sean put them in last summer.  We should have a plan for collecting those these summer.
3. Four stands, three depths (at the bottom of the Oi, Oe, Oa, maybe).  Two mesh sizes with pieces of filter paper.  Sean has some of the initial weights.  Collection will be time consuming, keeping track of which layer they are coming from.

None of these involved the Ca plots.  

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Matthew Lawrence Hayden <mlhayden@syr.edu>  wrote:

Myself and a couple other shoestringers went out and pulled off the BEF marathon yesterday and grabbed all of the bags! Things were wet enough that I made the call to individually bag them. I am encountering an issue though: many of the bags have really, really negligible amounts of paper left in them, if any at all. So far, the absolute most I've been able to glean off of one of the bags was 0.14 g; generally, they're turning out closer to 0.03 g or less. Let me know what you think, I am currently unsure whether processing all 200- some- odd bags is really worth the effort if the results aren't there. On another note, the one week tea bags have given me some interesting results- I'll be sharing everything soon!

Throughfall

Ruth, Tomoki Oda

How many funnels per plot?  20 is good.  10 might be okay for a preliminary trial. Funnels are 20 cm in diameter. Vessels are 20 L.  In Japan, the rain in 2 weeks can be 5 L.  We should calculate how much rain it takes to fill a 2L soda bottle (this is unfunded research), and collect accordingly. If we care about the chemistry and not the volume, does it matter if they overflow?

Combine for analysis, unless we are interested in variability. How variable is concentration? Is it related to volume?  Volume is very variable. Budget cost of analysis of N and P. We could do this for a few events one summer and see what we get. If we find an interaction of N and P, this would be worth pursuing.  Summer only would be fine, it’s not important to the budget, but we could learn 
 something about nutrient interactions. Ask Ehren how this might relate to microbes in the phyllosphere.

Tomoki will be at Hubbard Brook July 20 to 28.  Ask Mark Green if he wants to be involved; he might have a student who could put out funnels in HBm or HBo.  Or we could try this at Bartlett.

P.S.  Could we make funnels also from 2-L soda bottles? How to add unfunded projects for cheap.

Summer plans

Melany, Jerome, Ruth, Tom

Confirming dates for Melany’s folks.  Need a bed for Shinjini and a floor at least for (who?).  Pitch a tent behind the chalet and maybe more at the white house.

P fertilizer: 2 bags of powdered form, 2 bags of granular form (use in buffers if powdered comes up short).  Matt will analyze some of the granules for us.  Then we will decide what to order for next year.  

On May 12, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Adam Wild <adamdwild@gmail.com> wrote:

Granular would make life so much easier. It still maybe so fine that the P-cups would be needed though. The original order we had was a very fine granular consistency and you needed the P-cups but it spread easily. The last batch was more of a powder and it does not shake out well. It also cakes up under just a little moisture or even humidity. It is not fun to work with.

Besides being easier to apply I think having granular would actually be better for the project. I think we could get a more even application and the granular would have a better chance of getting down in the forest floor. The 
 powder form sticks to any surface so a lot of time it just sticks to low growing vegetation.    

On May 15, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Forest Ecology <forestecology@esf.edu> wrote:

Manufacturer’s regulatory affairs office just called. Chemically, both  products are the same, with nothing extra added to make the granules.  The specifications to manufacture are the same,  95% min. The sizing differences are simply due to differences in the “manufacturing process.”  They offer both due to handling preferences of their customers.

Lysimetry: 

Melany: I worry about zero tension lysimeters.  I have installed a few of these and it creates quite a mess.  It also takes some time for solution chemistry to return to normal. Lysimetry would be fantastic for the project.  I hope we can be very careful about planning and installation. Also, can we consider tension lysimeters?
Tim: Lysimetry is a big commitment!! If the exact use of these data is not clear, it is probably not wise. Add nutrients- more nutrients in soil solution. We are not likely to be trying to develop nutrient budgets unless we get a new million $$.

Soil stuff:  Seasonality is important but we’re not dealing with it.  June, July, August. Resin strips depend too much on hydrology, which is independent of season. Extractions and lab incubations for N mineralization. 
  Groffman does in situ incubations.  Marginal effect of P on N minz. Looking at metals complexing with organic matter would be useful, more metals binding to SOM slows down nutrient recycling. This could relate to 
 soil horizonation…..  Tom, Jerome, Ruth:  Seedling study.  Mesh size, 44, 50, 55.  The cost goes up as the size goes down.  For 55 uM: $30/yd^2 = $551.10 (they do not have enough of this in stock for our needs, but they have some)

For 50 uM: $42.42 = $779.25

For 44 uM: $66.88 = $1224.91

Bag dimensions can be different for beech and maple (since we aren’t comparing species to each other).  20 cm x 12 cm (beech) and 20 x 20 (maple)

Timing:  Harvest 10 the first year, 10 the second year, not knowing when differences will develop.

Construction:  Crimping iron?  Tom can help move sand through the

Sites: Do we want Ca?  If so, JBo, HBo, C8.  If not, C7, C8, C9.  Those are all the old stands.

Treatments:  Control, N, P, Ca, and what about N&P?

Tim et al., For Austin’s AM and EM colonization project, he could sample the trees we are monitoring for sap flow (5 plots in C1, C6, C8).  This would be nice because we got funding (McIntire-Stennis) to pursue the link between sap flow and mycorrhizae.

Jerome is asking whether Austin should focus on the stands that Tim will core for biomass (C1, C2, and C4?).  This could help us interpret his treatment effects.  Alternatively, we could put out little fungal ingrowth 
 cores.  Tom says that Erik Hobbie tried this but doesn’t remember why this didn’t work, he will ask.

Jerome will be putting seedling bags out in mature stands only (or they will die).  We are leaning towards HBo, JBo, and C8 (for the Ca treatments) rather than C7, C8, C9.

Soils

Christy, Gabriel, Ruth 

Core diameter:  We thought the diameter of the corer was 10 cm, but this may be the outside diameter (4”).  Christy asked Colin Fuss to measure the inside diameter; he says ~9.65 cm.  Let’s look for the manufacturer’s spec sheet.  April was using 9.5 cm. Depths  are not always 10, 20, 30, 50.  This doesn’t matter to Christy, who adds 
 them up.  It matters to the calculation of root mass per unit area in the 30-50 cm increment. We will make a correction if the upper boundary is not 30 cm.  A linear 
 correction is more modest than the truth (because root mass declines with  depth).  

For the lower boundary, if it is less than 50, we will assume that there are no more roots (i.e. the corer hit a rock).  There are only 2 samples that were reported with a bottom depth >50 cm (both are 51 cm).  We will not 
 correct these. We don’t know how the depths are recorded.  You mark with sharpie on the outside of the drill bit so you know when to stop coring.  But how are 
 deviations from those targets noted?  Christy will ask April.

Estimates of missing soil masses: 
Gabriel has added the missing masses to Christy’s file.

Green in column O means that we have the mass.

There are four more samples yet to be added.

For masses that are missing (due to Rose not saving the soil when she started picking roots), we will use the Cornell mass.  Include the graph and the regresssion statistics showing that the mass from Cornell is a good estimate of the mass from ESF (better than using a mean).

Other missing values:  Some are zeros and some are missing.  The missing probably need to be estimated in the spreadsheet (use another color) or the totals won’t work right.  

Rock information:  There is rock mass data in Christy’s file, which does not include rocks deeper than the corer.  Does she need to know about our rocks?  At ESF, we were recording the <2mm fraction.  We do have >2mm masses (we don’t oven dry rocks).  Leave the data in there, and someone would need to do some more 
 work to get the rock mass information.

Documentation: Christy will edit the metadata from the roots to use for the power core CN file. We will color code the masses that were estimated, not measured.  The ones that were split and estimated in Syracuse, we won’t code. N is done, should it be combined with the Michigan results, and where to do we stand with those?  (Oie samples keep turning up in our freezers, this could be better than the substitute ones collected post-treatment). Ruth will send the N results to Sophie Harrison. What will we do with all these data? Tony’s data could be used, N mineralization, combined with Melany’s.  He won’t publish.

What controls C stabilization?  Texture could be useful. Could be a job for RAHSS students this summer!  We have the equipment to do it in a lab down the hall.  Need to think about what depth to analyze (we probably don’t need all of them).

Need to find the samples that went from Michigan to Cornell.  Archive in Syracuse.

Sap Flow

Mariann, Matt, Ruth, Jerome, Weijie

C1, C6, C8, all five plots. We will not count on the new data loggers 5 that work, 1 for the lab for testing sensors.  There is 1 more out for repair? CR800s can each have 3 trees.

Michele said:  There’s a good chance you’ll have five dataloggers and multiplexers… Brendan and I need to check. There would be a minimum of four dataloggers with multis.

Batteries (the car batteries) are another issue… we have to see how many will hold their charge still.

Thanks Michele!  Here’s your first question.  Are you counting the data logger that’s here now in Syracuse for testing? We want 5 in the field for 5 plots simultaneously.  We could forego testing for the week that we’re collecting data, if your other datalogger can’t be 
 repaired.  Are you counting all of those to come to 5?

Max number of trees connected to data logger/multi-plexer at one time last summer with Sophie was six. 

Can we use long wires and more batteries?  No. In heat ratio method, if wires >10 meters in length, data becomes unreliable, not that signal disappears, but becomes less reliable. Matt:  Using stem maps, choose a primary and a secondary species for each stand.  

Is it important to have the same species in each stand? There is no SM in the young stands.

Beech is everywhere.  Not enough yellow birch in the old stands, Matt says (outside the stands)

Is including Ca more important than consistency in species?  Species differ with stand age.  It’s important to include Ca treatments, we are most likely to Stem maps.  Adam sent excel files but we don’t want to recreate the GIS files.

Eli said: I had Jerome send me all the data, I'll try to make up some maps later today after my test that actually link directly to the datasets. The ones I made 
 before we're kind of messed up because of the stake coordinates being a bit of a pain. If it's not too too difficult, I should have them done by tonight.

Minimum diameter?  Adan has sapwood measurements from C2; Matt has a spreadsheet.  For red maple and white birch, a small tree is all sapwood (up to 15 cm).  For beech, 3 cm of sapwood in a 15-cm tree.  He used heat ratio probes, in 3 depths.  For pin cherry, which has only 1 cm of sapwood, he had noisy data and a lot of zeros, probably because he was in the heartwood. Let’s not measure pin cherry.  We don’t have an equation for sugar maple. How damaging is this to the trees?  We keep using the same trees (in the mature stands, there is not a lot of choice).  It would be good to stay below BH so as not to affect our DBH measurements.  Matt remembers that 
 Virginia and Adan looked at the effect of height  (and aspect); they didn’t see any systematic differences.  Paint the hole so we can find it again the next year.  We leave fragments of drill bits in trees, too.  

Tag all trees we use!  Matt wishes that Adan had done this. Batteries.  We need 3 per data logger, 15 in the field at one time.  20 total, to include the ones charging in the lab.  Michele will report on how many are good.  Deep cycle marine batteries.  Michele has our 4 chargers.  

Duration:  Last year, we did one week in each stand. Mariann says this didn’t give us very many days of good data (technical difficulties, across all trees). Aim for 10 days. 

Shopping list/inventory:  Check Sophie’s methods sction.Metal posts, chicken wire for data logger and heater sensor box, total of five storage boxes, cordless drill with several batteries, ⅛” drill bits, wire cutters, 
 wire strippers, aluminum shields, heat sink, staple gun, staples, electrical tape, masking tape, mini flathead screwdriver, flagging, ruler, mylar/bubble-wrap 
 things, large garbage bags, bungee cords, battery boxes….

Ruth, Melany, Shinjini, Jerome, Ehren, Tim

Jenna and Hannah will come out July 20-23 to install resin strips and survey Shinjini’s seedlings.  They will need help orienting to the sites, but more than capable after initial introduction.  They will collect the resin strips 
 two weeks later.Bringing vehicle? One of two groups will bring vehicle.   Melany promised Jenna and Hannah field work, so please include in inventory.  

Shinjini and Shan will show up later or, we’ll try to send all 4 together but have to work out travel.  Both of them will go to ESA.  Possible carpool?  Open jaw?

Apatite cores -  8 pairs in each plot deployed during spring 2013 (C7, C8 & C9). Melany will come late July to collect apatite cores. Peak root biomass is reached in August.  She thinks it would take the field crew only 3 days to get through all the roots with enough of the right people. Ideally we would sort through these in the days before inventory.  We need to sort right away, or put the cores in the freezer right away.  So we’ll see how it 
 goes. Gather soil moisture readings at plots 8 & 9 during 1st week of June? Better in mid-July (weather dependent). Tim’s roots: Unexpected results from C2: more roots in the N&P, possible also in N and P.  Repeat in C1 and C4, which are infertile and young.  Ask Melany about C4.  Hyphal ingrowth, mycorrhizae?  EMs will all be colonized, so PLFA or some other measure of abundance?  If we believe the minirhizotrons, there wasn’t a response in turnover.  But there was greater 
 soil respiration in the control. Can we pull out roots and put them in a chamber?  Tim will look up the 
 method, could be something that we don’t have, like an O2 sensor. What about root respiration in conjunction with nutrient uptake measurements?

Tim usually collects roots in August, before the crew comes home.  Mid August. C1 for sure.  

November to install ingrowth cores, could be at the same time as emptying litter baskets.  Leave them in for a year.  The spring is not good because root growth starts in April.  Tim will be putting them in the ice storm 
 study this fall. Indoor activities for high school students in Syracuse and for rainy days at Bartlett: Tim thinks it’s worthwhile to process roots from the trenches.  Ruth will 
 estimate the time required. We will continue to sort litter from 2014. Tim asked about staining and scoring AM roots.  What species?  Maple (red maple in young stands).  Aspen has EM and AM, C4 has a lot of bigtooth aspen 
 in two of the plots.  How many trees?  Get one root per tree so they are independent.  C4 is infertile.

50-100 samples total.  Put one student on maple and one on aspen. Could think about doing ectos in the same places. Apatite ingrowth cores:  Melany 
 and Joel talked. Our apatite ingrowth cores will be 2 years old this summer.  We plan to collect and process them.  Questions:  Do N or P availability influence fine root length, fine root or mycorrhizal hyphal biomass responses to added apatite, apatite dissolution, or fine root uptake of apatite-derived P? Do N or P availability influence the depth distribution of root, mycorrhizal, or apatite variables? Early August is the most practical time for collection. One set of cores will be processed right away and the remainder will be frozen.

Procedure in Fisk lab:

• Separate FF from mineral soil and separate mineral soil into 0-10 and 10-20 cm increments and weigh separate horizons of each core (fresh mass)
• Separate roots from soil.  Retain ALL soil.
• Freeze a subsample of soil immediately, for fungal analysis (qPCR of AM hyphae, sapro+EM hyphae).
• Scan and freeze roots immediately.
• Analyze inorganic N, resin-extractable P, and bicarbonate-extractable P.
• Air-dry remainder of soil for later apatite analysis. Send Joel subsamples of these soils and subsamples of the soils that were used to fill the cores 2 years ago.
• Send Joel roots for REE, 87Sr/86Sr and Ca/Sr analysis. Joel may also do heavy liquids apatite separations on some of the samples. Is there anything else we want to do with roots?  For example, mycorrhizal colonization.    

Jerome, Ruth, Matt need to ask Melany and Shinjini: germinants? regen early okay?

Microbial Community

Melany, Shan, Jerome, Ruth, Tom

Melany has pretreatment DNA extracted from soils (2010).  They plan to do illumina sequencing this summer or next fall.  We have post-treatment samples in the freezer (2014) and don't have a clear plan for them.  

Shan's rhizosphere samples would be very interesting for addressing whether reductions in mycorrhizal hyphae contribute to the suppression of fungal biomass and respiration that she found.  I have plans to work with someone at Indiana next fall on microbial dormancy 
 and stoichiometry, to see if we can link some kind of "waking up" to the species composition.  
Tom will be working with bulk-soil extracts from the seedling bags, using next-gen sequencing.  The M-S budget has only $2500, more may come from a seed grant. Looking at root tips doesn’t require the Illumina platform. Ingrowth cores, Fisk and Blum.  What will be done on those?  Could save the roots for Tom.

Shan’s roots, could those be saved for mycorrhizae on root tips? She may or may not be collecting rhizosphere soil. Sharing primers:  My sense is we can share primers and it will be relatively cheap to do so. I would focus on the fungal barcode primers (e.g., ITS1, ITS1f, ITS4, ITS2, ITS3)

Roots

Tim, Ruth, Gabriel

Fahey cores

Plans for analysis of C2 roots: Paloma will analyze P on the roots from C2 (2010 and 2014).  Useful for a power analysis, useful for preproposal, planning for time and cost.  Tim wasn’t aiming for publication, but we have 
 lots of other data coming in for the C2 Blitz (there are significant results for foliar chemistry and resorption; next might be a vector analysis). Tim said it might be publishable in a low-rent journal like Applied Soil Ecology. Side discussion: Vials are more expensive than coin envelopes, are they better? Tim picks roots from soil, labels a vial, and passes to Alexis.  He thinks 
 it’s easier to put roots in a vial than a coin envelope.  Alexis sorts by size and vitality, washes, and they end up in multiple pre-weighed vials. In Ruth’s lab, we pick, sort, and wash, and the roots go into pre-weighed coin envelopes.

Outliers:  Two are spreadsheet errors.  Alexis will look at the other samples with high values.  They may be in Syracuse, not Ithaca; she will let us know.  Griffin may know which ones we have.  Ruth found an email that 
 says we sent a list to Cornell of the roots we have.  But we don’t know where to find it now...

Deep roots

Gabriel is organizing deep root data (from power cores), wants input on what variables to retain (root mass per unit volume, since the depth increments differ?  mass per unit area?) Ask April and Christy about the meaning of the reported depths.  What is measured when they say it starts at 29 or 30 cm?  Why do some cores go to 33 
 cm, 39 cm, is this because they hit a rock?  If so, this is the amount of roots in the 30-50 cm depth increment.  

Tim: ““For this purpose we assumed that the roots recovered from deep soil cores represented all the roots in the 30-50 cm depth increment for that soil profile; some of this increment in the cores was occupied by rocks which contained no roots and the entire 30-50 cm increment was not recovered in every core.”

Units:  g/m2, even though the depth increments differ? Report the mean and s.e. of the depth increment.  Will the variation be smaller if we do it on root mass per unit volume or per unit soil mass?  For the power analysis, we 
 were expecting to use g/m2, but we could convert them to mass per unit volume.  We don’t have mass of the Fahey cores. Gabriel will update the spreadsheet and review it with Ruth before passing it to John for power analysis.

John and Ruth will redo the power analysis of the Fahey cores with just 2 outliers removed, and we will compare detectable difference on a mass per unit volume basis.

This call ended with a fire alarm at Cornell, but Tim sent us notes afterwards so we know the building didn’t burn down.

Shan and Jerome’s results and plans

Shan, Melany, Ruth, Jerome, Shinjini, Mariann, Tim

Results

Shan sent us 4 powerpoint slides.  The results are from 3 stands (C1, C2,  C3), stand is included in the statistical model as a random effect.  Could you graph the three stands with a legend to show which is which?  It would 
 be nice to know if C2 is representative. N mineralization and microbial respiration are responding in mineral soil to N and to N+P.  Shan’s results:  N addition depressed the difference between rhizosphere and bulk soil microbial respiration in AM red maple, but not in ECM yellow birch.  N decreases rhizosphere and bulk soil fungi abundance but not bacteria in both AM and ECM.  

Jerome’s results:  colonization did not differ for EM roots, no differences in EM colonization due to treatment, composition is the question being asked now (YB root tips being sent for gene sequencing currently), red maple root tips being quantified now.

Jerome’s nutrient uptake results, non-significant uptake between AM vs EM species, weak signals

Plans

Summer 2015 nutrient uptake: focus on Yellow Birch, ~8 replicates, young stands to minimize intrusion and subsequent damage to inner plots (focus on 
 buffer). Couple this with community analysis of YB root tips. Jerome: root/mycorrhizal work in the organic and upper ~5 cm mineral horizon. Utility in seeking roots at different depths for uptake experiments and community analysis?  Ok -- that would be where our soil results are from so going deeper probably wouldn’t show anything right now.  Shan is hoping for departmental funding to do high through-put sequencing on DNA extractions from rhizosphere and bulk soils collected from C1, C2, C3 in 
 2014 summer. The McIntire-Stennis grant to Yanai and Horton will cover…  

Summer plans include in-growth mesh bags with beech and sugar maple seedlings, DNA extractions from sand medium to assess mycorrhizal hyphae ingrowth (for C), also ingrowth mesh bags without seedlings to assess hyphal foraging (nutrients instead of C).

What stands? Ruth was suggesting that we use Melany’s N gradient. Tim recalls that Ruth complained that we can’t use plots as independent observations.

Shan thought it was harder to find roots in mature stands.  Mature stands have much bigger roots on surface soil and more difficult to collect large mat of dense fine roots.  It might be easier to trace fine roots from an 
 individual tree though.  She also thought mid was better than young because the microbial community would be stabilized,

Tim: choose stands where the pre-treatment N availability is most similar across the plots. (Note:  this is not relevant if she is not working in the treated plots) What about disturbance?  We will find more trees in the buffer if we stay in the younger stands, so these are the best for minimizing disturbance. Melany suggests a mitigation scheme.  Patch the forest floor with material 
 from outside?  We don’t want to bring in more (untreated) material than we remove.  The amount of material being removed is tiny.

Ruth: Jerome, have you looked at the stem maps to see what trees you have to choose from?  

We could map stems in the buffer zones this summer.  We wish we had maps now for planning these experiments.  They would also be useful for describing the competitive environment around our measurement trees.

Organic vs mineral

Shan: Should we do some more things in the mineral soil??  I wondered if Jerome’s work has been in mineral soil at all.  Jerome’s roots don’t stay in one horizon.  They are in both or in between. It’s probably not realistic for him to get roots from organic vs. mineral soil.  Ruth originally proposed to do that (in 2000) and gave up. 

Combining with sap flow

How big are the trees in C1-3?  Stands with Ca treatments are C1, C6, C8.  These could be replicates, we would be assuming that there are not interactions with stand age. C8 would not meet Tim’s criterion of selecting stands that have similar plots pre-treatment. Comparing Shan and Jerome’s results. The experimental unit is not the same.  Which experiments are most important to coordinate?  Melany:  What about the microbial community measurements?  Let’s have a session for that. 

More Field Plans

Jerome, Ruth, Shinjini, Melany

Weighing Fertilizer: June 1-5th

Melany will send ~3 people to help with weighing fertilizer/fertilization. Fertilization starts on June 8 (8-12th).  We will invite high school students.  If we have 12 people, we won’t need more from Miami. Sap flow will start on June 15. Shan will come in July, ~2 weeks, resin strips and 15N.  With Jenna. Apatite cores need to be collected (C7, C8, C9).  Melany will talk to Joel. 2 days max. Tree inventory will start on July 31 or Aug 3.

Herb inventory this summer? Interest by Zach Pointer, and other prospective grad. students… Possible collaboration and summer internship project…

Soil moisture for Shinjini end of June, sites C8 and C9 (Licor moisture probe) ~ 1-2 days. We have the chalet from June 1 to Aug ? From Miami: Shan, Jenna confirmed for July and Shinjini for Tree inventory in Aug.

Ben and Jessica not confirmed, will update as soon as possible. Melany may spend a week in New Hampshire…..to be confirmed….

From SUNY ESF: Jerome, Kayo, Zach, possibly Kara, other prospective grads to come….

Field Plans

Shinjini, Melany, Adam, Ruth, Jerome, Zach

Field Season

Starts on June 1 (a Monday). No soil sampling this year, except for Shan on rhizosphere soil.  Put out resin strips for two weeks, maybe Shan will install and we will collect. Ruth will be in Japan May 21- June 3. Melany will be in Oregon in mid June - mid July. Shinjini will be in the lab (until stand inventory).  Owen might be available.

Stand inventory: When?  After the trees stop growing.  In 2011, we did it at the end of July, first week of August.

How many people?  Three people can do 2 stands/day, more if they are experienced.  Old stands go faster than the young ones.  A week and a half for one crew.

Last year:  C1, C2, C6, C8, JBM and JBO were done.  Ingrowth has been tagged in these.

Maintenance:

Who:  Jerome will be attending a meeting Aug 3-7.  Jenna from Miami wants to do it.  Zach could do it.  We will probably have summer interns.  Melany is hoping to recruit Jessica. ESA is Aug 9-14.  Classes start Aug 31 at ESF, Aug 24 for Miami. Start on July 31 or Aug 3 Adam:  If you want to shoot leaves, we do it in the first week of August. Kara is working up results from 2014 (green leaves in C2, litter in C1, C2, C3); let’s see those results before we decide whether to shoot leaves.

Fertilizing

Last year we did it the second week of June.  First week we weighed fertilizer. How many people for how many days?  4-5 people per crew, 2 crews, could do it in a week.  Each crew needs to have someone responsible (not Ruth) in charge.  Pay attention to where people are.  

Housing:  

We have only the white house, there is extra demand on the dorm this year. Craig found a place for $1000/month; Melany paid $800/week for a little cabin. At ESF, there is a new rule that the lease has to be made through the 
 research office. Jerome will contact the owner of the chalet and see what else is out there. (Adam got it!)

People:  

Jerome,  Zach, Kayo (2 months), Undergrad projects:  2 on sapflow, 1 on regen, 1 on rocks?, 1 on coarse and 
 1 on fine woody debris.  Soil moisture?  Shan would come out just for a week (15N labeling experiment).

Shinjini needs to let us know what to do for her germinants. 

10:15 Sapflow sensors

Michele, Jerome, Ruth

Custom lengths for wire:  Yes, Michele used to do this. Don’t forget the length to get to breast height. Tools: soldering gun, a dremel?, a voltmeter, needles,  hermocouple wire, heater wire, solder, wirestrippers, razor blades, wood glue.  Don’t use gorilla glue, it swells up. Box up and sent to Heather Englemann, B-9 Marshall Hall, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse NY 13210.

Brendan Leonardi should give us a tutorial over Skype. Ask him for 1 p.m. on Saturday Feb 28.  Sunday March 1 as well if he’s available. Common errors:  Not stripping wire, connecting wrong wires. Testing: Hook up to a data logger.  We need a heater board. And a battery. Jerome thinks we have some 12V motorcycle batteries.

Power core masses

Gabriel, Christy, Ruth

We planned to talk next on 2/27, after Christy takes a stab at documentation.

Sap flow 2015

Mark, Heidi, Matt, Ruth, Tom 

Mark will contact Ed Rastetter about involving his model. (Ed approved what Ruth sent.) Mark:  Micrometeorology.  W1 is warmer, what about the MELNHE Ca plots? Broader impacts:  not an RUI proposal, how much to say about Plymouth undergrads?

The RET portion was criticized last time, think about this when we get to the full proposal. Structure of objectives and hypotheses. Alex asked whether the nutrient treatments are the best way to learn about the effect of mycorrhize on water use.  Tom:  mycorrhizae need to be included in any analysis of soil resource gain 
 by plants… quote on the effect of mycorrhizae on water use, which has never been assessed in forests.

The drought treatment will be 2015-2016, 10 x 15 m plots, age intermediate, mostly red maple and beech.  Good for AM-EM comparison. We could put out seedling bags in the drought treatments this summer:  think about spatial pattern--put them under the troughs.  Depends how much it rains…  Or look at the canopy trees?  At least look at sap flow, which is zero additional cost.  Nutrient uptake?  Better next year than this year. Request permission, it’s somewhat destructive.  Plan ahead for where to allow soil disurbance.  There is a 5-m buffer zone.  They will be taking cores for root biomass.  

Tom: Colonization can be done on roots stored in ethanol.  For AM roots, need to check on alcohol.  Best time to collect would be in the fall.  Maybe also spring, communities shift.  Better than colonization alone.

Tom:  Drought opens up a large relevant literature. Primarily AM.  My knowledge of this is limited.  Need to cite Mike Allen. Matt:  How about direct treatments of mycorrhizae?  In the lab, not in the field. Next steps?  How much are we tweaking it?  Mark will communicate with Ed before he leaves on Sunday. Let’s make sure we have a section on prior reviews.  It will be easy to say that we can improve on the modeling component.  Adding  rought might or might not help with this. Matt asked what we expect from the drought treatment.  Tom thinks in terms of community shifts.  Complicated by root length. Mass flow of water is important to nutrient uptake:  does a drought help us test that?  The MEL model handles water, nutrients, and tradeoffs in uptake. 
  Let’s see if we can get Ed on a conference call.  Adding mycorrhizae to MEL could be a product, AM vs. EM.  (This was mentioned in the Shoestring proposal.) Need to get supplies for constructing sensors in Syracuse.  Do we need further instruction?  See Sophie’s notes.  Michele wrote back, I need to forward those notes.

Sample trees? 

Sap flow 2024

Sophie, Ruth, Mariann, Mark (Adam in PR)

Sophie sent a revised methods section and detailed instructions for the future field crew. She is going to be too busy to lead writing of a paper this semester, which 
 is just as well

PAR data:  We have data from HB and BEF, and Mark figured out how to convert the units.  Since we don’t have JB, maybe we should use just one of the data 
 streams.  The one at BEF is above the canopy at the tower; the one from HB is from an opening near headquarters.  VPD.  We’re talking about plans for next summer.  One thing we want to know is which side of the tree you and Lily used in 2013.  In 2014 we were on the S 
 side of the tree.  How far from a previous sensor spot do you think we need to be to avoid the effect of wounding at a previous site? Answer from Lilly:  "We were not super consistent with what tree face to use on each tree.

Location had to do with a few reasons: if there were old holes to avoid, the face of the tree features like thick bark or wounds, if it was easier to reach one side of the tree because of slope or other factors, and length of wire, if the tree was close to the edge then the closer face was used. So maybe that is an area for that could use refinement this summer."

Sap flow 2015

Mark, Heidi, Matt, Ruth, Jerome, Alex, Tom

Sensors:  Granier are easier to construct; we can do it with volunteers even starting this spring in Syracuse.  Trouble-shooting and maintenance are also harder for the heat-pulse method.  The disadvantage is the energy use, but we’re not planning to run them all summer.  It worked last summer to take all the batteries to one site at a time.  Put in the proposal that we have to block by stand anyway so we don’t lose any degrees of freedom by blocking for date. Mark has data loggers,  2-3 multiplexors. How many undergrads:  Sophie did sap flow; Justin did soil moisture.  Ask Mariann Johnston if she will be involved again as a mentor.  Matt could 
 spend a couple of days at the beginning..  Could also coordinate with Katie Jennings  (UNH) who will be doing granier sap flow in the drought plot at Hubbard Brook.

We will add a Ca plot to HBM.  Matt says there is room above our plots that doesn’t drain into the stream.  Matt will contact Heather  about getting the material.  We’ll ask Heather to start the proposal to the RAC for us.  Matt 
 will make a map.   LIDAR could be useful.  The plots are not as comparable in species composition as in some of the other sites, because they are small.  

Experimental design:  Let’s pick sites that include the extremes of Melany’s N mineralization gradient.

Pre-proposal:  One of the reviewers complained that we were ignoring literature about mycorrhizae and water relations.  Tom will look, and document that what’s out there is not relevant to our forest plots.  Kayo can help with the literature review.

Modeling:  What does Ed’s model have for transpiration? Mark talked to Ed about it last summer; he’ll ask Ed if we can list him on the proposal.  We could still have modeling under Mark; Ed has said that he could help a 
 post-doc if we put one on our MELNHE renewal.

Sap flow

Sap flow: Sophie, Mariann, Ruth, Adam

Met data:  At HB we are using station 1 (better than HQ which is out in the open).  What to use for met data at JB? We tried to get T and RH this summer but it didn’t work.  

What will we be doing in summer 2015 if NSF funds us?  What if not?  Do we want to put a summer undergrad on this again? Mariann and Sophie have been communicating about statistical analyses.

Summer projects

Jerome, Ruth, ...

Sap flow

Adam, Mark, Sophie, Mariann, Ruth

Mark will figure out unit conversions for PAR.  Use this later in models. Sophie will send revised methods next week.  Include lots of detail for now, how you decided which data to include. We are going to proceed with the processed data, so we probably won’t need reprocessing of the data (Mariann did it for the output from Sophie and Baseliner).  We think it would still be smart to get the raw data from the data loggers, just to have it, just in case. We looked at cool graphs that Mariann made.  She fit a polynomial, which isn’t constrained to agree with itself at midnight.  A sine function would handle that, but maybe you want more than two parameters in the model. Sophie will take this on with guidance from Mariann. Sophie will look at the Hubbard Brook RH and T, if they are similar to Bartlett, we could use the same values for all three sites.  She had trouble understanding the headers on the Bartlett file.

Comparing HB and BEF will be important, and can we look at satellite cloud cover for JB?

Mark compared the light data (two different units) 

I finally finished adding and organizing the tree inventory from this summer  into the master spreadsheet.  Let me know if everything looks okay before Heather uploads it to the website.

Looks reasonable to me.  What did we learn from this round that will help us in the big re-measure next year?

I'm starting to wish we had tagged the <10cm trees in the 5x5 plots, at 
 least in the young stands where they represent(ed) most of the stem density 
 and a large fraction of basal area.  Too late to worry about it now?

I think we learned that there was not really a consistent growth response and that we may want to wait on doing the big re-measure next year. We also learned there was a difference in growth response between measuring in the 
 end of June and the end of July.

If these stand are going to be monitored for a long time it maybe worth tagging smaller trees in the 5x5 sub-plots. That could be a project for this summer. 

I'd be concerned about skipping a re-inventory because if we go too long without checking and adjusting tags, lots of them get eaten by the trees or fall off.  It's not a huge problem when this happens to a couple trees per plot, but it gets very confusing if it's more than that.  This was a serious problem between the 2004 and 2011 inventories (I'm sure Shinjini remembers!).  If we are going to touch every tree for tag maintenance, we may as well get DBH data, right?

It's true that the growth differences would have to be pretty large to be detectable if we want to look at each stand individually, given the inherent among-tree variation in radial growth rate (even when expressed as %BAI).

I guess there are a few ways to approach it statistically. One would be to treat all the stands as replicates ignoring the site-level age and soil differences that we think are probably important) and just ask about treatment effects on growth (by species?) since 2011. (stand would be a random effect in the model but we couldn't put in interactions with stand? What about initial DBH as a covariate?)  That would give us a lot of power, at least for most species, to detect a treatment effect IF it's at least consistent in direction across stands.

In the mid and mature stands, we could compare each tree's pre-treatment BAI with post-treatment, and then test for a treatment X time interaction. This won't work in the young stands, because most trees weren't tagged until recently. If we had a targeted question about a specific species or site, we could do some coring and measure pre- and post-treatment rings.  This worked really well in Watershed 1, but it's a lot more work (hours per tree rather than minutes), and probably best saved for when there are more post-treatment growth years. 

Shinjini's dissertation was going to be about the inventory (species responses within the whole ecosystem response), so I'm sure she'd like to do it next year...

It is important to document a lack of effect at this point, since we are also documenting interesting soil and belowground responses.  We need to know what is happening aboveground at the same time to interpret.  And the maintenance issues are important.  Also, if there is no effect, it gives more confidence in the baseline growth from which to detect an effect.  

We raised baskets that were on steep slopes or baskets that were on slopes and had leaf litter blown up against the side of them.  We raised them by using 3 foot long wooden stakes that were around 2 inches wide and 1/2 inch thick.  We inserted two stakes on an angle to form a cradle for the basket to sit into. The baskets were then zip-tied to the stakes. I think it will work. The post will eventually rot but should last at least 5 years I would think. They do look as if they would be more attractive for bears to play with. 

I know we raised three baskets C9 plot 4: baskets A1, B2, and C1; two baskets in C8 plot 4: baskets A3 and B2; and two baskets in C2 plot 1: baskets A3 and B2.

I am not sure of the HB and JB sites, I know baskets were raised in HB old, maybe JB old.....

We can inventory the total number of raised baskets at those sites when we do litter collections.

As for twigs, Tim's rule is 1cm diameter and less = fine litter.  We only collect what is actually in the basket and break off any part extending outside the basket area.

Hi Adam and Jerome, 

We collected C6 litter.  It was pretty wet.  The first bags shredded so we put them in second bags, and they are all packed in on the racks pretty tight -- so you might want to see if you can get a little more air to the litter somehow.  Hope the rest of the collections go well! Melany

Just to let you know that I collected JBO, JBM and HBO today. It was drizzling at Jeffers and the bags are in pretty bad shape. Half the leaves are in the oven now and the other half will go in Wed. I think it may be safest if I weigh Jeffers leaves here.  Do you need the leaves for anything after they are weighed? Also, while labeling at HBO was superb, the labeling at Jeffers Brook left a lot to be desired!

It sounds like I will just rebag and send in January.

One more question, at JB the basket that was usually labelled said "A3" in the spot I expected to be "C3".  I can relabel the bags if I know that the "A3" position was correct (not always labelled and not always A3, so my 
 confidence was low).  Let me know.

I would highly recommend tags for the baskets rather than sharpee labeling and maybe more holes in the bottoms! Since there is not a clear answer to my question on JB basket labels, I'll go with what I put on based on the subplot map. I will rebag and box up to go to the COS in Jan.  They were all oven dried at 60C for 48 hours.

From: Ruth D Yanai <rdyanai@syr.edu>

Some of them are mirror images: A B C or 1 2 3 go across the top and the other goes down. Is that what you mean, Nat? I'm copying Jerome, because he will need to have basket checks on his site maintenance list for next year.  

Sap Flow

(Marian, Ruth, Sophie, Mark, Adam)

Mariann has been working with the converted data and formatting it to read into SAS.  We want to be able to control for T, PAR, RH.  We have flux tower data for T and RH from Bartlett, the units for PPFD are not kJ.  For HB, we are missing July 17-19 for T and RH, we have PAR.

Mark:  People use VPD in the sap flow literature.  It includes T, so we don’t need T additionally.

Data from all these sources are coming in at different times.  Day of year, hour, minute.  Mariann has been labeling  them in 15-minute increments.  She is using a marginal model procedure to look at covariation, which affects the df.  The unstructured covariance matrix fits the covariance for all the pairs of variables, but this uses a lot of df.  She will look at some alternatives and compare them to this, which might give more df and thus more power to the mixed model.

Mark wants to see the source code for Baseliner, because we don’t want to use converted data that we don’t understand.  Ram Oren developed it at Duke. Ruth could ask him.  The program finds a zero baseline at night. Sophie was looking at the graphs it produced and choosing a value from the flattest portion of the late night, using the same time for all the trees.  This is 
 better than taking numbers from black box.  Are we happy with the output? Lily Zahor had problems with her data but we’re not sure Baseliner was a problem.  They had problems with field data collection and with managing time in Excel.  

Sophie:  Baseliner would sometimes give a zero and sometimes missing, but we don’t know why.  Zero could mean a negative number, but then what is missing? Sophie hasn’t seen the manual.  Mark will send it around. Marian: What will we use for RH and PAR for JB?  

Mark:  We have to hope that BEF and HB are similar and we can use the regional values.  Lily compared them and the variation was similar, if not the magnitudes of the data.

Marian:  We would want to compare them for the same dates.  Adam will request them. Mark has ~10 sensors at HB, associated with the FIA plots, which Mark can 
 access directly. Sophie could try this, though Mariann offered.  Mariann is backup. Mark has an R script to “stack” the data.  Mariann finished the converted 
 data, but if we go back to the unconverted data, it would be helpful for him to do the data manipulation. Mark will work on getting the raw data from the data loggers.

Field plans

(Adam, Ruth, Melany, Rick)

Melany and Shinjini will arrive on Oct 21, they will be at Bartlett on Oct 24, flying home on Oct 25th.  Melany will contact Chris about housing.  They will be at C5 and C6.  Someone could work with Shinjini, collecting soil cores near the ingrowth cores for an additional control. Melany has a hamstring injury and can’t go uphill.  They could could collect baskets in the stands that they are in. Check with Rick or Chris as to the status of leaf fall.  Rick answered on Skype!  He was collecting the last of his litterbags, and gave us a report. He says it’s going to rain in the next three days, so maybe more of the 
 leaves will come down.  A lot are still on the trees now.  

He’ll be out this weekend, and will clear his samples from the racks. Corrie collected snails, and we need to know how much drying space there is on the rack. Big decision:  Are we ready to sort our first post-treatment litter?  Let’s 
 sort C2, Matt did it last year.  Or C1, C2, and C3.  Even though we didn’t see an effect on stem growth, they might put on more leaves. Fresh leaf litter:  Adam collected C1, C2, C3 on Oct 4.  Kara collected C2 only on Sept 28.  

Sap Flow

Ruth and Mariann talked.  Sophie is no longer available at this time, she added a class.

Mariann has been reformatting data, post-baseline, we need to hear from Mark whether he would rather process the data, and there may be more data to add.

Kikang's respiration paper

(Kikang, Ruth)

 Litterfall data:  
 The 2010 spring (collected in spring 2011) samples had twigs in them; they were removed and all the samples were reweighed.   The 2009 spring (collected in spring 2010) samples can’t be found, so we’re not sure whether 
 they have twigs in them.  That was before we were funded, and it was only Bali, Kikang, Carrie Rose, and Tyler.  The 2010 samples were about 30% twigs.  The 2009 samples are about 20% more massive than the 2010.  We don’t know how consistent the spring masses are, is this much difference possibly due to how much litter (beech) had fallen at the time of our fall collection? We could look at the masses of spring litter from other years.  (Not 2008; we looked at that file and it says that the summer masses were not collected.  There is no mention of spring, which was probably still in the baskets in the summer.)  We have spring masses from many other years, which would indicate whether the 2009 spring masses are now an outlier. Note that some data sets have only “fall” and “summer”, but the summer collection is probably mostly what we collect now in the spring.

For 2010, the spring masses are about 7% of the fall masses.  So it hardly seems worth correcting 20% of that for twigs, even if we have them!

Root data:  Kikang will ask Alexis for the latest version of the root biomass data. Response to reviews:  Kikang will edit to reflect the final changes.

Soil invertebrates

(Rick, Theo, Ruth)

We discussed Theo’s proposal in our lab meeting yesterday, and suggested that it would be good to start in C2, because of Fahey’s “blitz”.  Sample processing:  Rick, Craig, and Ben sieved samples into 2 size classes, 
 about 1 mm mesh. This summer the field crew was sorting the larger ones.  Donnie threw out the small sample from one plot when he thought he was supposed to look for large ones.  Rick needs to check which stand that was in. The larger samples were sorted to order.  They could be identified further, trophic level within the mites. Subsampling:  80 ml subsampled to 1 ml.  Rick will put these in 1-ml slides with a grid.  There’s an excel tally sheet to count by types.  Theo has done it with a petri dish over a grid. Rick will send methods.

What taxonomic level to sort to?  Professors at ESF to consult:  Rebecca Rundell, Melissa Fierke, Ray Norton.  Try Ray first, he’s a mite expert, but retired.  Cheryl Bondi is a graduate student under Colin Beier.  Stop by her 
 lab and try to meet her undergrads. Adam will bring some samples back to Syracuse.  Jerome will be going next weekend, and there will be one more trip in October.

Rick will send some subsamples to Theo this weekend. Start with C1, C2, C3. Aim for 1 subsample from all the stands first, then 2 from all the stands if time is available.

Basket collection is scheduled for Oct 23-25.  

Kikang's respiration paper

(Ruth, Kikang, Melany)

Kikang will check with Alex for final fine root estimates (adding missing data) and with Yang for final litterfall (adding 2010 and correcting twig weights).  Ruth and Kikang will talk on Sept 24 at 8 a.m. and clean up the text.  

Field plans

(Adam, Jerome, Ruth)

On Thurs, Sept 18, Yang and Li will take a Prius from ESF to pick up Adam and go to NH.  They will have two (2) LiCorrs and 3 (three) batteries, which means that two people can probably handle the respiration measurements. Send us a plan for how to sequence them.  Jerome, please ask Kikang about her system for rotating stands to avoid bias due to sequence of plots within stands.

On Fri, Sept 19, Jerome, Alex, and Kara will drive another ESF Prius to NH. They will dig roots Saturday and Sunday morning in C2 (probably with help from Li).  Kara will put out nets for litterfall.  In the afternoon (roots being dug), people will do respiration and litter collection (red maple and yellow birch) in C1 and C3, for Melany. Rain Date: the following weekend, if necessary.

Oct 23-25 is still on the calendar, it will be our basket litter collection. Not sure about Jerome installing bags for future mycorrhizal work.  Not sure whether these leaves get dried or frozen for later sorting.  Available 
 people include Jerome, Kara, Adam, Griffin.  Nat? 

Field plans

(Tim, Adam, Jerome, Ruth, Melany)

Melany did rhizosphere work in C1, C2, and C3.  She would like to see litter from these stands.

Melany:  Is September too early to collect litter?

Tim:  First of Oct might be better for litter chemistry.  It differed by  species and between the two years.  The first week or two of litterfall was different.  After the end of Sept, beech and sugar maple were stable in N 
 concentration, yellow birch went down a little after that.

Ruth:  We always used nets and tarps and collected leaves during rain-free periods.  

Tim:  They get rained on in the canopy anyway.

Leaf litter:  Melany wants C1, C2, C3.  If we can’t get it, she’ll try to go earlier than late October.  She thinks September is too early to get litter that is fully resorbed.

Melany, if you want total litter nutrient flux, maybe you’d rather analyze what’s in the baskets.  That’s what Tim would recommend.

Respiration:  Jerome got three dates this summer. Getting another seems like a good thing.

Jerome will need to install ingrowth bags with seed sometime this fall for mycorrhizal work.  This could be done at the same time as emptying the litter baskets.

People:  Jerome will confirm with Alex and ask Kara. Check with Theo.  for digging roots for uptake measurement.  They will be in C2.

Adam will be in charge of respiration and getting leaf litter for Melany in C1 and C3.  If Yang could go, they could do all the stands in two days. Adam could pick up a LiCorr in Syracuse before then if that would help. Leave Friday afternoon, return late Sunday night. Adam could meet them in Albany, or he could go earlier if that would help.  Tim thinks this date could be marginally worth doing respiration.  Jerome will communicate with Doug Daley about using Tim Volk’s instrument. Rain dates: Jerome and Adam are both available Sept 27-28 and Oct 4-5. Jerome will check on availability of the rest of the possible crew members.  Consider Stephanie and Reed (but how much work-study time would this burn, 
 48 hours each?  Ask if they are willing to go and be paid for the time they are working in the field, not the travel time.  Reed might go for it, since he’s never seen our stands.  Make the same offer to Gabriel; he’s on our 
 payroll and they are friends.)

Melany will go with Shinjini; they can drive if we have people they can take with them (Kara needs field work).  It would be nice for Shinjini to have company in the field.  She is going to C5 and C6 to collect cores.  The date was selected in consultation with Lynn Christensen.

We are not sure whether this is too early to empty litter baskets.  Tim says HB W5 will have dropped 95% of everything except the beech.  PC is half down by the end of September.  Excellent!

We think two people could get all the litter in two long days (1 day for Bartlett, 1 for JB and HB).  Two and a half days would be easier.

Adam will communicate with Chris Costello about housing.

Sapflow

(Sophie, Mariann, and Adam)

Sophie’s results so far: Statistics

Mariann: The number of trees limits our statistical power. We need balanced data for repeated measures.  Ruth and Adam think SAS proc mixed can handle it.

JB Yellow birch had 5 Ca and 3 control, Ca are higher than control. JB Sugar maple has 4 Ca and 5 control, 3 of the Ca are higher, 1 lower (1 excluded)

HB Beech:  3 Ca, 3 control, all overlapping

HB  YB: 3 Ca, 2 control, all overlapping

HB  SM: 2 Ca, 3 control, overlapping (controls between the Ca)

C8  Beech:  1 Ca, 3 control, overlapping

C8  SM:  2 Ca, 3 control, overlapping (controls between the Ca)

C8  YB:  3 Ca, 3 control, all overlapping

Some trees have data for more days than others. No corrections yet for RH or T.  We tried to get RH and T from sensors at JB, but the readings weren’t in a range that made sense.  Let’s try asking Mark about this. For PAR, Adam will request data for HB and BEF from Amey Bailey and Andrew Richardson. What should we do for PAR at JB?  If including these weather variables accounts for differences among days, will we be comfortable using all three sites in a statistical test? What about including all the species in the same model?  We should come out 
 ahead with degrees of freedom. How is the data processed that comes off the data logger?  Michele uses a “baseliner” program.  At one time, Mark was critical of the baseliner program, and thought it would be a better idea to do the calculation manually, which wouldn’t be hard at all in SAS. The raw data are still on the data loggers--there are two data loggers that Sophie doesn’t have for a week at JB, because it got overwritten on her 
 computer.  She will ask Mark to get this for her. Who and what?  Sophie has some time and is hoping to be involved but doesn’t have the statistical skills.

Mariann will run statistics in SAS, working with Sophie to get the data organized for analysis. What about the soil moisture data?  Mark thought the results were exciting, 
 does he think it’s a separate publication or does it belong in this one? Students involved were Joe last year and Justin this year.  Let’s talk about this next time.  

Pre treatment soils

The lost 2010 samples have been found and Tim and Christy will take care of them.  We need to remember to follow up with Joel, he has extractions to run on ICP still.

We are missing some of the mass of the 30-50 cm depth increment.  We still have frozen samples with roots in them (this was the point of splitting the sample).  We have a work-study student and some high school volunteers and will get this done--we will make estimate of how long it will take.

We could weigh the entire sample and give the raw weight to Christy.  Better to get the roots done, sieve the soils, and dry and weigh both the coarse and fine fraction.

The good news is that we don’t have to save the soil when we root-pick samples from the half pits and trenches to try to fill in the gaps of the samples lost in transit from Michigan to Cornell.

N differences across stands

Tony measured N mineralization in the Federer Chronosequence so that we could have more stands in a comparison of N availability.  He found more N in stands on schist than on granite.  Melany had been asking us what controls N accumulation, and I think Craig helped him frame this question.

Steve Porder is interested in our study, we could send him rocks from our soil pits.

Christy sees N deeper than C in Ithaca shale.  That’s not true with the NH sites, they stay constant at 20 all the way down, instead of narrowing with depth.  True of Chris Johnson’s data from W5, even at 50 cm depth.  

N stocks vary from 4-8 tons/ha (plus what we’re missing from the 30-50 cm depth increment).

2004 quantitative pits could be added to that data set.

In 2003 we did pits in the Federer Chronosequence.  You can see all of this in Tony’s thesis.  There are still errors in the analysis but it will be submitted on Monday.

Tim’s root samples from PVC cores

Some were wet sieved.  Tyler wet sieved the samples that were collected in 2008. Some were picked dry.  Cindy did it dry. The field crew from 2010 said wet, but now I wonder if they meant washing the roots after they were picked.  I’ll ask again. Bias by individuals as well as picking methods. Tim doesn’t want anything to do with the quality of the root picking data.  You can’t account for the error. Methods need to list all the ways they were processed.  It would be good to see a summary of what samples are still missing.  We were finding samples that weren’t listed on the spreadsheet.  Tim will look at it with Alexis.

Melany, Tim, and Ruth.  Franklin.  

Franklin’s data: compare the AM colonization vs EM root tips to the proportion of AM vs. EM leaf biomass from our litter baskets.  These vary by plot and stand.  We can also pair cores and litter baskets.  Anything that would reduce the variation could help.  Tim predicts that the plot (not the subplot) will reduce the variation.

Shoestring Annual Meeting, on the patio, Hubbard Brook 

Introductions and Appreciations

Ruth appreciated the new information presented yesterday, some new since the practice talks the day before. Adam--The one-time fertilization went well (all new routines). Shinjini is very happy that everyone is coming up with new projects and new ideas, and starting to see responses. Matt, 11 years with the Shoestring project, before it was a shoestring.  We heard a lot about co-limitation yesterday. Jerome appreciates Ruth’s efforts to mix solutions for him, and is looking forward to measuring nutrient uptake capacity in C1 and C2.  Roots will be excised for mycorrhizal work.  Mariann always enjoys coming up to work at Bartlett.  She is excited about sapflow and happy that Matt collected BBD data (Matt credits Elizabeth Hane).  Shan--New Hampshire is cool, Hubbard Brook is cool, the Shoestring Project is cool.  Joel was very impressed with all the results.  Wish the trees would pay more attention to the fertilization.  Sophie and the other undergrads did great on their presentations.  Practicing is good.  Sean, teacher from Conway--looking forward to bringing science back to the classroom.  Owen’s first time at the July meetings, looking forward to sharing time and lab space.  Tim:  I named the Shoestring Project.  Raymond just got here from Ca.  Also attending: Ed, Christy, Mark, Melany, Rick.

Adam was pleased to have met all the MELNHE PIs.  This may be the first time they have all been together!

Litter baskets  (Tim)

Tim:  We should not have our baskets on the ground if they are getting extra litter blowing in (especially bad on steep slopes, C9 and HBo).  It’s less of a problem in a dense stand, W5 hasn’t been a problem until recently.

Joel:  Should we keep the old basket and compare to the new basket?

Tim:  We put them on fence posts, but we use milk crates.  You can’t do that with a laundry basket.  Now we use 2 fence posts, because they break down.

“Saltation” is the term for particles moving by bouncing along in the wind.

Matt:  They were raised 5-10 cm just to help them drain.  At one time, we had 345 baskets.  

Adam:  There are still a lot in the barn.  

Tim:  We could reduce the number of baskets that need to be raised by checking the data for outliers and raising only the ones that seem problematic.

Look into milk crates, not for baskets, but for raising the laundry baskets.  Bed Bath and Beyond?

Do this in August, since the litter year starts in August.

You can see examples of Tim’s baskets on the W6 trail.

Tim:  Attach them to saplings.  Matt:  Girdle them with zip ties.

Soil moisture probe (Jerome)

Jerome:  Should we be using the LiCorr for soil moisture measurements?  

Shinjini: Hannah is staying to finish the germinants and she will collect soil moisture.  

Mark:  Surficial measurements are not the relevant to the sap flow project

Ed:  You could put rods in the ground and leave them there

Jerome:  What about Stephanie and the snail project, she could use information on soil moisture.

Adam:  Which depths and stands would you want moisture probes in?  

Mark:  50 cm seems less sensitive, 30 is better.

Matt:  The data loggers have 5 ports, a couple hundred dollars for a logger and 3 probes.

Germinants (Shinjini)

From next year just once per year.

Pretreatment soil and roots

Pretreatment soil samples were sent from MI to Cornell last September but we can’t find them.  

The backup samples are in Ruth’s lab, she will get them subsampled.  Alexis will be back in a couple of weeks, we’ll let her do the pulverizing. These will be analyzed for N in Christy’s lab.  Meanwhile, Oie samples went to MI.  Did we forget about N in those, too?

Pretreatment roots also need to be finished.  Tim’s PVC core set is almost complete. Missing root weights were filled in from stored dried samples (and 8 samples were found in freezers after this meeting).  The 30-50 cm power cores and the 2010 half-pit samples are being sorted by high shool students in Ruth’s lab this summer.

Ideas for integration

Melany:  Why do we have this N gradient?

Christy:  Why do the high hardwoods have twice as much N as the rest of the HB watersheds.

They asked about trace metals.  Joel did Fe and Al in 42 soil pits, lots of layers, sequential extractions.

Melany: We could do density fractionation, or other fractionations.

Soil texture:  Melany has it for the surface 10 cm for all the sites, Matt did it for the deep layers of the soil pits.

Christy, Melany, Joel, and Shan will keep discussing this.  They might bring in others.

Christy:  Power analysis

Tim will send …?

Blitz C1 and C2

Tim had proposed taking an initial round of post-treatment measurements of all types in our youngest stands.

Tim: C1 and C2 have a soil respiration response.  C2 has a response in tree growth, significantly for white birch.

Adam:  C1 doesn’t have a clear response.  There are more tagged trees in C2.

So maybe it’s a C2 blitz.  What shall we measure?

Mycorrhizal colonization, Tim can get undergrads to do it, using Franklin’s methods.

Matt:  Red maple in C2 had significantly greater sap flow, it was the only significant result Adan had.

Did C3 have a respiration response?  

Christy:  Do you correct for pre-treatment rates?  Is it worth collecting respiration data from Ca plots?  Bhavia is looking at respiration response to Ca in the Adirondacks.

Shooting leaves in C2:  Adam will train everyone to do it the first week of August.  Should we scan them for area?  Matt uses a hole punch.  See what we did pre-treatment.

Collecting fresh leaf litter in the fall.  It takes a couple of trips because the species fall at different times.  Set out nets in August or pick up fresh ones, ask Corrie if she can do it this fall.

Processing:  Matt uses a shatterbox.  Tim uses a coffee grinder, then a dental almagamator.  We started using a Wiley mill at 40 mesh, but Tim and Matt said some of the fibrous species don’t go through.

Nutrient uptake and mycorrhizal community: Jerome, Raymond, Ruth, and Griffin will be working in C2 this weekend.

N fixation

This idea came up when Ed, Melany, and Ruth were talking about preliminary data for a renewal.  Ruth proposed that Raymond could do this on rhizosphere and bulk soil collected this weekend in C2.

Mason jars:  pints might be enough, if we’re only sampling once.

Tim:  The sandbox showed it for pines.  Did they have any other ectomycorrhizal species?

Christy will send a citation for infinitesimally low N fixation in pines elsewhere.  Probably not worth while.  Has to be anaerobic.  Ask Yavitt and Armunda what they find for N fixation genes.

Ed:  The idea is that the root rhizosphere provides the C source.  Incubate in pure N and look for O.  Gretchen knows how to do N fixation (in blue green algae up at Toolik).

Shinjini:  Finding the gene doesn’t mean it’s happening.  Christy:  yes, the gene is common.  They are W of 6, more in the mineral soil than the Oie.  Bulk soil, compared to W1.

Apatite Cores (Melany and Joel)

These were installed last summer and should be removed next summer.  Talk about it next spring.  Who wants to work on it?

Stem Mapping

Stem mapping started in C8 (where everything starts).  What stands do we want the most?  The young stands are turning over fast.  Start with C8, C9, JBo, HBo.  

What do we want it for?  Spatial patterns, BBD, species composition by Melany’s soils, litter baskets.

Matt has a spreadsheet to turn the survey data into GIS data.

Final Reports from REUs

They should present at the HB REU meeting on August 8. This will help make sure that they finish processing their data before they leave.  

Replacement Plots

Tim, Adam, and Matt have selected the best possible place to put in a replacement for the plots in HBo (4 subplots, there’s not room for more).  2 baskets and 2 respiration collars.  We will continue monitoring the old ones, it’s going to be messy for data analysis.  Only one tagged tree fell down but the light environment is quite different.

The control for HBCa (HBCa2) is even more messed up than HBo.  There’s a big gap right in the middle of the plot.  It was a poor control in terms of the soil environment, and it’s inconvenient, but we used it because it was already set up by Scott Bailey.  For sap flow, they picked control trees outside the Ca plot.  Ditto for pH, they just went outside the plot.  

In C9, there is now a gap in the NP plot.   C7 had a tree fall after fertilization.  C8 just outside plot 3.  Matt:  By selecting spots without blowdown, we set ourselves up, they are overdue for blowdown.  

If we look at growth of trees, it won’t matter.  Don’t use BA of the plot.

Bug processing (Rick)

They are counting the rare big ones first.  Craig and Rick had worked on these.  The crew was building sap sensors on rainy days, but they can sort bugs after the sap flow measurements are done.  

Sap flow (Mariann)

Individual trees have very different sap flow, treatment effects didn’t look significant.  Should we be trying to get more data or not?  It doesn’t look like it’s going to help Mark with his proposal (without treatment effects).  Try analyzing the data combining species.  For JB, she’ll watch more closely, if you lose one tree out of three you don’t have much to go on.  4 batteries can run 9 trees for a week without solar panels.  Could add more batteries and run more ports on the data loggers.  JB is the hardest to get to, and least likely to respond to Ca, is this the best stand to do next?

What is the effect on these trees of putting sap flow probes in them every year?  Stay away from BH (1.37 m) when installing them.  

Tree inventory

Tim:  How do we measure trees with BBD?  

Matt:  There are notes for trees that couldn’t be measured at BH.  You go to the nail, and if not, you go somewhere else and take notes.  

C2, C6, C8, maybe JBm.

Stand Ages

Tim is lumping young and mid and calling them “successional”

Melany: Then we can like C3 again.

Tim:  It gives you more power.  

Ruth:  If we have an excess of young stands, we can harvest some and see what happens.

Ruth:  I use “HBo” but now I see “HBO”, let’s standardize our names.

Tim:  Whoever publishes a paper with all 13 sites gets to set the names.

Modeling (Ed)

Ed: Ray and I have talked about a project based on the simulations we published last year.  Ed has equations that attribute changes in veg and soil C in the ecosystem to characteristics of the N stocks.  How much C change can be explained by a change in N if C:N doesn’t change?  Or how much would C:N have to change to explain the pool changes?  Or if you can reallocate N from soil to veg, which have different C:N.  Does it matter what the two end points are?  Simulation results from year 1 and year 2:  N inputs, N mined from soil, N from C:N change.  Plot these over time.  Do the same with P.  How synchronous are the N and P curves?  Seems easy since we already have the model output.  Ed wants to add some new simulations, eliminating P limitation or N limitation.  

Ruth:  Will this tell us anything we can verify with measurements?

Ed:  If you have a complete C and N budget.

Tim:  Put it in the proposal for year 10.

Ed:  Here’s another one that would be easy to run but I don’t know what the question would be.  In tundra, we have compared MEL to eddy flux data.  What will we learn by comparing our sites to Andrew RIchardson’s eddy flux data from Bartlett?

Ed:  The third analysis, which I’ll bring Michele Mack in on, this year.  The ratio of N:P recycling, the trickle of inputs controls long-term accumulation, can these be limited by different elements.  Then if weathering and N fixation are under biological control, does that synchronize the internal cycles, and would this be regulated by the costs of acquisition?

Melany:  Does the internal cycling relate to mycorrhizal systems, would it differ for EM and AM?

Ed:  I want to rebuild a simpler MEL, so it’s focused on these issues.

C1 and C4 where the soil pits say there is not enough apatite to grow the forest more than one more time. (What was this comment about, a modeling exercise or a harvest experiment?)

Slope and Aspect

At the five baskets, go 10 m out to get slope and aspect. Five points is enough to characterize the plot. Meeting adjourned to a picnic at Mirror Lake, thanks to the field crew.

Kikang’s thesis paper

Matt will come on June 5 to HB to rough out the new HBo C.  He’ll be back the weekend of the 31st.  

Germinants

Shinjini, Melany, Tim, Matt, Ruth

We discussed the characterization of root depth.  Explain in the methods that lateral root branches were assigned to the depth at which they left the tap root.  Was zero the bud scar or the cotyledon scar?  Need to get Natalie’s input, she’s done a lot of this.

TIm:  The meaning of a root tip is different between EM and AM species.

Melany:  What’s the most interesting question we could answer?  There was no effect of fertilization treatment on growth.  Is is interesting to look at treatment effects on mycorrhizal colonization if it didn’t matter to growth or survival?

Shinjini hasn’t analyzed for treatment effects on growth or survivorship from the second year; she can do that in the next week.

The germinants will be surveyed again in June and August, there are still a few hundred in C8, C9 and HBo.  
It will be easier to pose questions knowing whether there is a treatment response.

Matt:  This year’s seedlings could be used for mycorrhizal community analysis.

The AM are getting more interesting, there are better primers now.  So this would be somewhat novel.  Owen’s work has set the stage for this.

Melany:  Colonization rates might be related to something else.

Tim:  You won’t see differences in colonization in sugar maple, only in beech.

Melany:  Sugar maple will differ in the number of tips.

Ruth:  By colonization rate, do you mean the microscopic analysis that Franklin did?  Talk to him about how much time it took.  

Melany:  Analyzing the nutrient concentrations in leaves would be easy.

Tim suggested measuring plant water potential

Field Plans.  Tim, Melany, Adam, Shinjini, Shan, Jerome, Ruth

Respiration:  How often, how many stands, how many collars?

There are 5 collars in each plot now.  Adding 4 collars in the 4 corners would improve our spatial coverage.  Tony says it takes an hour to do a site, 15 minutes per plot.  It takes 2 minutes per collar including the purge time.  

Because of the diurnal variation, Kikang tried to take all her measurements between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.  Last year, Tony and Hongzhang were putting in three long days to do 13 stands (they were also doing minirhizotrons but the respiration measurements take longer).

Tony thinks the battery would be a problem.  Tim: we could buy another battery.  Tony:  We use big batteries to warm up the machine and minimize the use of the portable battery, which would last for 3 stands.  We charge the battery during a lunch break.

It sounds like it would be 1 day at JB, 1 day at HB, and 2 days (or 3) at Bartlett.

We need to purchase and cut 8” PCV pipe, 6” tall, and sharpen them.  Christy had made up dozens of them, but she wants to use them for something else.  If we make them up there, we don’t have to worry about transporting them.  Check with Ian Halm about a chop saw and a grinder.  13 * 4 plots * 4 collars/plot = 208.  (Half as many to add 2 collars/plot)

Compromise:  Add 2 collars, then could HB and JB be done in a day?

Tim:  The diurnal variation is small but consistent.  Make sure you don’t do the stands and plots in the same order every time.

How often?  6 times between the first of June and the end of September.

Jerome has had some instruction from Tony and they’ll do a Skype call when Jerome gets to NH.

Jerome will look into getting a second battery for the LiCorr (is this a specialized battery?)

Root measurements:  We are abandoning the minirhizotrons. Melany and Shan’s rhizosphere and bulk soil from pin cherry and yellow birch in the buffer of C1, C2, C3, in July:  incubations for respiration and N mineralization.  Microbial C and N.  DNA for bacterial and fungal ratios. N and P and enzymes on regular soil samples. Jerome and Ruth are talking about making nutrient uptake measurements on the same roots used for collecting rhizosphere soil.  This is possible if they are collecting soil from roots in the field, not in the lab.

Tom Horton is interested in characterizing EM fungi on the same roots (and doing uptake and EM fungi again in the fall).

Talk to Rich Phillips’s student.  Roots from the forest floor or the mineral soil?  Will it be hard to find pin cherry roots?

Tim:  Could we also measure root respiration?  This would help interpret the soil respiration effects.

N fixation:  Peter Groffman’s GC is broken.  He thought it would be easy: put soil in a jar with acetylene, measure ethylene.  If we could detect treatment effects, it would be worth pursuing.  Can we collect the air sample and run it later?  Tim will be driving from New Hampshire to Cornell on June 1.  Or we do it later in the summer.  Tim could bring it back after the meetings.  If rhizosphere soils are of interest, Shan and Melany can collect some for practice and send that with Tim.  Or maybe this is a project for Alexis?  Melany will take charge of logistics.

Comprehensive measurements  in C1 and C2.  We got excited about this because we saw a respiration response in summer 2013.

Already committed:  soil respiration, tree inventory, soil nutrients, nutrient uptake, EM fungi.

Foliar sampling: To be comparable to previous measurements, this should be done in early August.  ~100 trees?

Fresh litterfall: Needs to be done in September, let’s ask Corrie.  ~50?

Check the numbers of species and trees sampled pre-treatment.  Seems manageable.

Roots:  Tim could collect roots C1 and C2 in August.  He would need help, sometime after August 12.  Jerome might be available.  This is a lot of work.  The roots alone will take 1000 hours.

Tim:  Checking the tagged trees in C1 and C2 could be enough to convince us that there is or isn’t a growth effect.

Ruth:  And Eli could present at the meeting whether we have a growth effect in our study.

Tree inventory:   

Matt and Shinjini tried C3 in 2012 and didn’t see a treatment response.

Proposed stands C1, C2, plus C8 if we want to show that there is more of a response in young stands.  

Maybe JBm and JBo, because there was a foliar treatment response.  C6 has the best pairing of treatments, so next best chance of seeing a response.  For NSF pre-proposal in January.

Shinjini will lead measurements of all stands in 2015.  

Timing:  previous inventory was conducted in late July or early August

There might be a quick early inventory of trees already tagged in C1 and C2.
Sap flow:  We will measure sap flow in C8. Do we want to do it in C1 and C2 instead of JBO and HBCa?  Which treatments?

Snails: Corrie and Cheryl are going to repeat what Cheryl did a few years ago - litter collection and sorting only in the Ca and control plots. We want to do cardboards and look at N and P along with Ca.   There is probably not value doing it in C1 and C2.

Cheryl and Corrie will be working in C6, C8, JBm, and JBo.  If we use the same stands, we can compare the cardboard method to the forest floor collection method.  We want to include the N & P treatments, this will be novel.  We know age matters, and the two sites may differ, because of Ca effects.   

4 stands *  5 plots * 12 cardboards per plot (one at each stake along the measurement area) * 3 events if possible = 720 samples.  240 cardboards, plus replacement.

We have free cardboard 8 x * 11, 1 mm thick, which is smaller and thinner than what Matt used before.  It’s hard to flip a big wet cardboard without tearing it, by the end of the year.  Thickness may matter less if it’s small.

They had two events at HB, three would be better.

More than half of the cardboards were zeros in the non-Ca stands at HB (W6 vs W1).  They may also dry out more quickly.  

We can put in two cardboards per stake, and sample both where numbers are low.

Vials:  1.5 ml centrifuge tubes are probably big enough, carry extra 20 ml bottles for the big snails.

Trays for keeping them organized might be important.  Matt has some he could lend us.

We got 800 2 ml vials for $22!  Ready to go.

 Germinants:  Survey in June, whether it’s worth continuing depends on how many are left.  Last August, there were still surviving germinants in C8, C9, and HBo.  

She wants soil moisture measurements.  Last year they did it in June and early August.  She hasn’t analyzed the data, there could be treatment effects.  The 2012 seedlings showed a response of shoot:root to soil moisture.  

Sap Flow

Michele, Mark, Mariann, Adam, Jerome, Ruth (Sophie is in Iceland). We discussed Michele’s idea of putting up scaffolding to put the solar panels up above the canopy.  We are not ready for that this year, let us know if you make any progress with it.

Sensors:  3  trees of 3 species, Ca and control =  18 sensors per stand (3 stands) = 54 total needed.  Have enough spare to take 9 to the site, 3-5 may need to be replaced each visit.

So far, they have 25-30 sensors made, they need to be soldered to gray wire. 5-10 minutes to solder a sensor to the gray wire and test in the lab.  Two people can make  10-15 sensors in a day, including connecting and testing them.  Michele will write up a protocol for making them.  We’ll set up a lab at Bartlett to make these when there’s time.

There is more prep to do, testing data loggers and there is an issue with software.

Batteries: Michele has at least 12 marine batteries, which work better than car batteries.  They use the smaller size.  They have been returning them and buying new ones at the same time; they last about two years.  

For 9 trees, they have been using 2 batteries and 2 90-watt solar panels, and this lasts 7-10 days, depending on the weather.  

Set some up on June 4 and let them run to see how long they last.
Battery chargers:  Michele has one.  Charge them over night.  We should get more - maybe 3 more. Between $20 and $50 each.

If we are checking the data collection every day, we can bring in batteries.

Check with Joel Blum on budget for supplies and travel on the REU for Sophie.
Other equipment

Solar panels:  Shall we take these or forget about it?  Test the batteries-only approach in the first week of June.

There are 6-8 data loggers.  One is enough if the trees are close together.

Michele has all the supplies to make the sensors.  Might need more wire later.

Experimental Design

Lily was working in Bartlett C8, HBo, and JBo.

Other stands with Ca treatments are C1, C6, and JBm.  For frequent checking, Bartlett is the most convenient.

Should we look for N & P effects?  Adam saw effects of N on red maple sap flow only in C2.  Soil respiration began to show treatment effects in 2013, in the young stands.  Tim Fahey is thinking about taking other measurements in these stands this year.  
For N & P effects, C1 would be better than C8.  Trees are small and we have tagged only those > 10 cm.

JB had the best foliar response (Adam). Driving to JB every day takes 2 hours round trip and costs us $50 in mileage. Is there a limit on tree size?

Timeline

June 4 at 9:30 or 10, Michele will come to Bartlett (maybe bringing Jamal and Jarred if we can adjust their schedule.  Normally they are with us Monday and Tuesday).

June 16 is the day we would start in C8, presuming that we can get fertilization done the week of June 9 (if it doesn’t rain).

June 23:  Hubbard Brook (Michele could check on these from Plymouth)

June 30:  Jeffers Brook (latest because of phenology.  Most remote, consider our commitment to it or look for local lodging?  Maybe by then we will know we don’t have to check constantly)

Sophie arrives on June 8.  So Eli or Justin or Jerome will go out with Michele on June 4 to install sensors.

Mariann will be at Bartlett the week of June 16.

Snails

Cheryl, Adam, Ruth, Stephanie, Abby,

We are planning two snail survey project this summer, the forest floor resampling and a new cardboard (quick and dirty) method.

1. Forest floor sampling.  Cheryl met with Colin, who agreed to pass on this project to Corrie.  We are hoping that Corrie will lead publication of the pre- and post-treatment comparison.  Additional authors will include Cheryl and Colin; Drew Smith who worked on the pre-treatment snails and should appear in the acknowledgments.  Jamie Wahls and Chelsea Geyer were undergrad field technicians who worked on the project. Pre-treatment snails will be passed to Corrie; Drew counted snails but didn’t identify them. She will need a microscope this winter, but we’ll need one here, too.  Calcium and controls.
2. Cardboard method: Cardboards will be installed at the beginning of the field season, in the buffer zone of N, P, N+P, Ca (where present) and control plots in a number of stands (to be determined based on the effort required). Ruth, Adam, and Matt talked on April 10 and Matt knows how long it takes to collect snails, but Ruth can’t find her notes. Cheryl: Do you replace the cardboard in the same spot?  Does removing the snails. We hope we can get microscopes from Rick Biche for the field crew to work on snail ID if they run out of litter to sort. Cheryl and Corrie will be working in C6, C8, JBm, and JBo.  

Snail ID:  Ken Hotopp has verified Cheryl’s

Tim, Matt, Adam, Ruth

HBo Control:  Of the 9 subplots, the two on the west have blowdown, one near the clearcut was already open due

Matt:  What measurements are being taken there?  Respiration, litter baskets, germinant plots, Melany’s soil measurements.  We should continue the

Tradeoffs:  Is it more important to be close, to be similar in species composition, terrain, soils.  Do we care if there are a lot of rocks?

Matt sent Adam notes on how to survey a plot with the hypsometer.  

“We use the hypsometer to triangulate gridpoints by horizontal distance rather than slope distance.  Compasses are in theory redundant, but in practice very helpful to approximate the next stake location, and as a validation of the final measurement.

“The hypsometer is typically quite repeatable to ~20cm, but every once in a while it throws you a screwy measurement that's off by a meter or more, probably due to sound reflection/refraction.  It pays to take your time - errors correlate with tricky terrain or obstructions, and tend to accumulate as you build the grid out from one corner.

“We start with putting stakes every 10.0 +/- 0.1m along a 30 or 50m straight line (usually the A line), and then build the interior 10x10m subplots off that.  Then we do the buffer last, since it's less important that it's precise.”

Location:  If we want sugar maple to be the dominant species, it might be quite a ways away.

Take a summary of

When:  The road will likely not open until the middle of May this year.  The first week of June would be an easy time to grab someone and put in a rough plot.  Don’t take a full crew because it might take a long time to be ready to survey.  Adam will do it, then he’ll know the site for surveying.

Is it important to have a buffer in the control?   Not if it’s not near the treatments.  We have been locating some of the measurements in the buffer, but for a control, they could go anywhere.  

 
Eli might be in charge of stem mapping.  Tim can show him how to use the hypsometer.  The manual is pretty good, and Matt has written an instruction sheet.  There are also two at UNH.  It’s good to have a backup.  And if you’re coordinated, you can have one hypsometer and two transponders to get two distances from one point, and reduces trampling in the plot.  They don’t work in the rain.  And avoid bike week near Bear Notch Road (middle of June).

 
Do we need to do maintenance before starting to fertilize?  It helps to get people familiar with the plot layout, but it’s not essential.  We won’t have a lot of people who know the plots.

9 a.m: P fractionation (Shan, Melany, Adam) 

Test the effect of N addition on rhizosphere soil (all 4 treatments):  microbial biomass, bacteria:fungi ratio, N mineralization (lab incubations), phosphatase activity, and microbial respiration.  Soluble organic carbon.  Compare rhizosphere and bulk soil, in young stands where Hongzhan found a respiration effect.  Would it be better to include C3?  How should effort be distributed, is it important to have replication within plots or is it more important

What are the species?  Pin cherry (AM) and birch (EM).

What’s the best time of year to do the sampling?  July 12-14 (see notes below from March 10).

Ruth might like to coordinate: roots excavated by species could be used for nutrient uptake measurements.  Can these roots be used to measure mycorrhizae?  (Jerome)  Very cool, if mycorrhizae explain differences in nutrient uptake.  Preliminary, for a pre-proposal, and to guide future work.  

Need to practice how to dig up roots (not in our plots).  Adam has some experience with this, getting aspen roots for Megan last year.

Sampling would be done in the buffer zone.

3 p.m.: sap flow (Lily, Michele, Mark, Ruth, Mariann)

Lily sent a link to graphs.

Graphs by tree show high variability by tree.  It would be nice to increase the number of trees.

There are few data from JB, because they couldn’t get enough power.  We will be less dependent this year on the solar panels for charging the batteries.

residuals vs. Oday & vpd v. Oday.pdf

Statistics:  They consulted local statisticians who suggested they look for temporal pattern in the data.  These are the residual plots.

vpd v PET.pdf (to show sapflow = f(PET), ignore the file name.

y is sapflow, x is PET, points show the day.  This was a helpful step for quality control.

Not all the observations are on here because they don’t all have PET.  There are no missing values for vpd (which is from HB).

3site24hr.pdf

This shows the diurnal pattern.  Better to show one line for each tree.  Then if any of the differences look significant, you can look at them over time and do statistics on them.

Mariann:  Are these patterns consistent over the season?

We know the daily sums don’t show a pattern in the residuals with time.

 
Lily got a USFS job in Colorado (1039 is the number of hours in 6 months)!  Gabe got a job climbing trees for the summer.  Cotter is coming on board, he’s already making sensors (60 hours to earn credit on an internship).  

Summer plan:  Start with C8 because it’s the easiest to get in to.  While that’s running, sensors can be installed in the next site.  How long does it take to charge the batteries?

Ask Pam Templar if we can borrow her battery chargers (there were 2 in the garage at HB).

3 p.m.: mycorrhizae (Tim, Franklin, Jerome, Melany)

Treatment responses: C1 and C2 have a respiration response.  

Melany: We discussed sampling rhizosphere soils for pin cherry and birch in those stands: microbial biomass, respiration, enzyme activity.  Nutrient uptake.  We could follow up with mycorrhizal colonization of the roots.

Tim: both birch and cherry have both AM and EM.  

Franklin: can we look at hyphal length in the soil, dilution and plating, hyphal length.  Melany has had students who have used this method, there are problems with extraction efficiency, live-dead distinction.

Melany: quantitative pcr on fungi, hard to know if they are saprotrophic or mycorrhizal.  This could also be used to distinguish bacteria from fungi.  Good to also have biomass.

Tim:  same thing with plfa, we can’t tell the mycorrhizal fungi.

Franklin:  spore sampling works for AM fungi; EM spores are harder to distinguish.

Tim:  We can get AM from structures in the roots.  EM colonization is not very sensitive.

Melany: PLFA gives you ecto plus sapro.

Is it meaningful to look at rhizosphere soil in the Oe?  The roots peel away clean.

Tim:  The response in the ectos will be the species composition of the fungi.  Lots of people have been reporting this (though it didn’t work for Franklin).

Franklin:  There will be hundreds of species, and a few key players that are known to be sensitive.

Melany: grind them up and do a community analysis instead of a root tip analysis.  Communities differ by plot (Owen is supposed to be describing pre-treatment communities).

Tim:  For species that can have EM and AM fungi, can you describe the root length colonized by EM?  

Franklin:  When they are dual colonized, one type dominates.   EM roots are 100% colonized.

Melany: qpcr using AM primers and standard primers.

Franklin didn’t have success with AM primers, neither have other of Tom’s students.  It’s a pretty big cocktail of 15-20 primers.  The approach needs more development.

Tim’s daughter Cathy had this working on giant sequoia.

Franklin supervised a summer student, Megan, who looked at AM vs. EM colonization of aspen in our plots.  

We don’t have aspen in many of our plots.  Klironomos did a paper on urban-rural populus,  If this works for prunus

Christy and Tim have a new student (Charlotte Levy) starting this fall, what should we encourage her to do?  Who else is hoping to work in this area?

Melany:  Shan is not interested in mycorrhizae; she might be interested in C, N, P, enzymes, microbial biomass, bacteria:fungi.  Melany wants her to look at N fixation, for the renewal proposal.  Or maybe an REU could look at N fixation, on a small scale just to see if it is worth follow-up?  

Jerome:  Is the next best step EM and AM with treatment and depth?

Melany:  saprotrophic activity in the forest floor, mycorrhizae in the mineral soil.

Franklin:  Lindahl’s paper: Activity maximal at the bottom of the forest floor.

Melany:  Could be by species, or it could be a sample of all the roots, chopped out of the forest floor.  Would this make it easier or harder to detect differences?

Tim:  How big would the response have to be to be detectable?

Franklin’s detectable differences for depth was ~16%, 20% between plots.  106 samples, 9300 microscope observations.  This was all species combined.  What are the biggest sources of uncertainty?  Would it help to take lots of samples and composite them, like Melany did for soils?  Tim will be thinking about how to improve the power.

Melany:  species composition might be easier to see now, wait on root length, like root biomass.  Tim: some way to test the method.  

Franklin: vessicles differed the most of the AM features (between organic and mineral)

Jerome could look at EM literature, there is more on N than P.  Has anyone linked these to plant response?  Melany: the Michigan gradient student has AM plants.  Franklin: there’s research in ag systems.  Melany: Check for results from Harvard forest studies, and look under Rytas Vilgalys in case he’s been involved in some of these fertilization studies.  

7 p.m.: snails (Cheryl Bondi, Corrie Blodgett, Rick Biche, Sean Littlefield)
Cheryl and Corrie did pre-treatment sampling in 2011 (before the Ca treatment).

Cheryl’s thesis is based on other sites.  Drew Smith did his undergraduate senior synthesis project on the snail samples from Hubbard Brook and Jeffers Brook.

Cheryl sent a powerpoint file that summarizes what plots we collected samples in 2011, what samples were collected, and preliminary results. We collected 1-meter square of leaf litter in each plot (4 samples of .5x.5 m; these are pooled in the field), he only sorted 25% of each sample due to time constraints. The rest is stored and could be sorted in the future.  For my dissertation work I sort the entire sample, which takes more time but you find way more stuff and I don't know if he was biased in his subsampling.

I had an undergraduate student subsample from the leaf litter and sort out the snails, so I can share his results as well.

 
Could middle school students do this?  Cheryl reports that she initially was checking on her student helpers and finding snails they missed, but they got better.

2500 snails in 12 plots in the Adirondacks, Cheryl got 16,500 snails in her 17 plots.  So either Cheryl is more thorough or there are more snails in the Green and White Mountains.  Four of the sites in VT had very high Ca, 3000 snails per site.  We shouldn’t have that many at Bartlett and Jeffers Brook.

Corrie:  There’s a steep learning curve.  You get better at it with practice.  It probably wouldn’t be fun for long for a middle-schooler.

 Results:  JBm has the most snails!  JB has wet spots.  JB (in other places Cheryl sampled) had some of the highest snail numbers in Cheryl’s study.

The hand-collected snails are larger, more generalist species and acid-tolerant, less likely to see a treatment effect.

The student ran out of time for identifying snails, or had trouble with accuracy.  So he focused on a single species that’s a Ca indicator.  Punctum minutisimum, not statistically signficant, but in the same direction (the most at JBm).

 Sampling effort:  More statistical power if the samples are separate.  Take one in each corner instead of four in one corner composited.   

Question:  The hand-collecting removes snails from the area, are we worried about returning to the same area?

Timing: 2011 was done at the end of the field season in August.  This is awkward for our summer interns.

Soil arthropods were also collected, macro arthropods are a current student project (beetles, millipedes, centipedes).  Tune in next week.  Micro arthropods are in ethanol and could be sorted.

Rick:  How important is it to follow this experimental design?

Cheryl:  It would be better to sample more spots, smaller amounts per spot, to increase replication for your treatment effects.  

Ruth:  What about the cardboard method?  Here are some slides, Steve Hamburg used it, Matt Vadeboncoeur could tell us what’s involved.  Why can’t the cardboards go out in advance?  It would reduce our field effort if

The cardboard method is more attractive because more of the time investment is in the field (in the woods in the wet, picking snails off the carboard, could be done by our

Corrie:  it depends what we’re looking for, is it relative abundance, is it diversity?

Ken Hotopp says we’ll miss a lot of species using the cardboard.  Maybe we don’t care if we’re just looking for a treatment effect.  But we might not see the rare calcophyllic snails, which tend to be small.

Rick:  Let’s look at how much labor we could save by working on the subsampling method.  

Is there any better way to separate them?  Would they float?

Ruth:  Is there any reason to be interested in the N and P treatments?

Cheryl:  Maybe through litter quality.  I haven’t seen any literature on this.

Rick:  In everything that went through the Tulgren funnels, I’ve only seen two snails.  They should still be in the leaf litter.  I have lots of those, collected in July 2013.

Corrie might be interested in processing samples next winter, her job with NEON is seasonal.

Cheryl, send us a reading list, and we’ll keep thinking about the experimental design.

She warns us that Drew’s paper is not what she hoped for in terms of species identification.

Rick would be available to help with field work and planning.  He has commitments to sorting the arthropod samples.  Craig is involved with this, too.  

Sean, similarly, is available in the summer, busy during the school year.

Sounds like Corrie is the lead on this project.  Mentoring a high school student and one of our summer interns could be in the mix.

Cheryl has a busy summer, including getting married and doing field work in the Adirondacks, but she’s often in Massachusetts and could pop up for a day.  She’ll keep Colin in the loop.

Sap flow results and planning:  Lily, Michele, Mark, Matt, Ruth

Lily’s results (she sent graphs).  

Ruth noted that the individual trees need to be recognized in the statistical model. Summing sapflow for the day, relate to VPD.  Again, need to include tree in the model. Consider using repeated measures.  If you get it to work in R, send it to us (Franklin needs it); if not send it to Tony to run it in SAS (Tony is running Franklin’s for him)

What are the units of sap flow?

Matt suggests looking for outliers.

We like the graph that shows the diurnal pattern, maybe show replicate trees for each stand-species combination?  You want something that indicates the uncertainty or confidence in the treatment effect.  The tree replicates

Plans for the summer

Michele’s lab is working on making sensors and they can get HB installed. Three mature stands: JBo, HBo, and C8.  Control and Ca at each stand. New approach:  Since the most important comparison is treatments within a stand, we want to focus attention (batteries, solar panels, data loggers) on one stand at a time. Supplies:  We need more battery chargers.  Count up frame packs for moving batteries.

1. Initial set-up of a site takes 2-3 days with 2 people. Up to 4 people is helpful, for a faster set-up.  Solar panels, batteries, wiring each tree, installing sensors, boxes up in cages, test the sensors, label everything.
2. Collect data, for as long as we think the batteries last (2 days is the minimum, if cloudy).  Check the data, there can be problems with sensors and wires. Replace them. Disconnecting the batteries and leaving them in the field, they recharge over 2-10 days. Bringing them back will be hard work (talk to Pam, her group did it).  C8 is the easiest to get to. 
3.   Move- Once the sites are set up – Checking and repairing a pair of sites (i.e. calcium and control) can take a couple of hours to 2 days (depends on status of the site – how many sensors are down, if batteries are drained).
4. Analyzing the data takes about 2-3 hours once the person knows what they are doing.

We’ll have another planning call before the season starts.

Aim for getting to each site in June, and report at the meeting in July!

Adan’s Results (Matt)

Red maple at C2 (the only site with red maple) showed a response to N in sapflow but not gas exchange.  It’s probably still early to look for treatment effects.
Mariann is teaching in the summer program on June 9. She might be able to be in the field with us the week of June 16.  Aim for one site per week

Soil sampling plans: 
Shinjini, Melany, Ruth, Jerome

Personnel: Shinjini, Shan, Owen at least 3 undergrads (Chelsea, Hannah, and Michael?  Dominic? Rebecca?)  

 Tentative schedule:

First 2 weeks of June: need to accommodate 4-5 people

2 June:  Shinjini +3 (or 4)  others arrive, Shinjini +2 survey germinants (if last year’s data suggest this is useful), at least one available to help with plot clean-up, fertilizer weighing.

9 - 13 June:  Shinjini + 2 others help fertilize.  Our crew can work weekends if it helps finish up (we’ll be on a rental car schedule!)
 July 5-18 or 20: Shinjini, Shan, 2-3 undergrads, maybe Owen 5-6 people

5-6 July:  Shinjini, Melany install resin strips  (or 2-3 July if Melany not needed)

12, 13, 14 July:  Melany et al soil sampling

15-18 July:  Melany et al soil processing

17 - 20 July: collect resin strips, return to Oxford sometime between 18 - 20.  

18 July - 1 Aug:  one Miami student could stay and help the field crew (would this be useful?)

4-8 Aug:  Miami student + 2 others repeat germinant survey

Main questions:

1. Have excess N or P altered microbial processes or labile nutrient pools?
2. Do the effects (if seen) vary in relation to initial nutrient availability?
3. Add others related to anything!  Shan is interested in different forms of organic N, related to mineralization processes, could be an N-15 addition.  Microbial turnover of N (might be higher, microbial biomass lower, as seen in the pin cherry study), effects on soil OM.  This would be an additional project to what is listed above.  Maybe better next year.  Someone should do it

 Things to consider:

1. Our first year response paper suggests that what we measured was a direct microbial response (no tree feedback yet).  This is probably no longer true.  What should we be thinking about to provide context on this? We should make sure Tim is continuing soil respiration measurements (which currently show a decline in response to N and N+P where N availability is low).  Could we do a mini “trenching” experiment to eliminate short-term rhizosphere C inputs?  (possible REU project).  Other thoughts?

Tasks:

 N mineralization and microbial respiration. Bic-P Microbial N and P Soil enzyme activity -- freeze subsamples for later. Resin strips in a selection of stands. Soils for P fractions

Germinants:  Survivorship of tagged germinants, height growth and number of leaves, soil moisture.  From years past:  nutrients on leaves and roots (subset or pooling?), mycorrhizal colonization.  Root architecture on 2013 
 scans.  Shinjini: molecular analysis of root ingrowth roots.
Soil collection:

One composite sample per plot, collected from each of 4 soil-sampling subplots evidence of changes in below ground allocation suggests that we need to 
sample fully within plots (not in buffer). All 3 horizons (many of the interesting patterns show up in B horizon). 
 We need enough for multiple analyses!  We should probably freeze subsamples in case of future interest in soil microbial community.  

Housing:  The undergrads will be fine with tenting.  Ruth or Adam will ask for permission  to have tents on site in the first two weeks of June.

REU at PVF: 
This needs to be a separate project from what’s described here.  Could be roots, respiration, manipulation of microbial activity.

Respiration and minirhizotrons:
 Hongzhang, Tim, Melany, Ruth

Hongzhang.  These results are based on June, July, August, September, where we have all 13 stands.  In the shoulder seasons, respiration is highly variable.  The 
 reason to do spring and fall is to be able to do an annual budget. Some stands have only two measurements (what Kikang called “extensive” stands), some have five (“intensive” stands, the ones for annual budgets).  They are using the average of all the growing-season measurements, because the

Figure 1:  There is lower respiration in fertilized stands, but it’s not significant across all stands. Bartlett has a significant reduction in respiration with added N and P, 
 especially in young stands. Stimulation of respiration by P at JB is consistent with incubations.  So P 
 stimulates microbial respiration.  Root-associated respiration should be reduced.

What’s going on at HB is, as usual, a complete mystery.  We could abandon HB, after the blowdown.  (just kidding?)

Treatment effects, Bartlett only:

2011 – no significant trmt effects

2012 – N trmts < controls p=.02

2013 - All trmts significantly less than controls, no difference among trmts N  < C,  p<.001, P < C, p=.002,  P < C,  p=.02. The patterns are driven by the young stands. Overall: treatment effect p=.06

2011 –  no differences among trmt

2012 –  N < C

2013 –  N < NP=P < C

Melany asked about putting in mini-trenching plots, driving in a cylinder.  Tim says CO2 would be coming in around the bottom.

Melany: measure root exudates, Rich Phillips’s method.  Ask him about it.

Tim: does this tell us about the tree’s C balance or the environment the root is in?

Tim: focus on doing one thing well, maybe in C1 and C2.

Melany: split root experiments, different mesh sizes, to look at mycorrhizae?

Tim: root respiration, nutrient uptake.  

Melany: 15N spray and pray.  Link to root and rhizophere, in and out of mini-trenches.

Melany: 14C label trees in the young stands (need a new grant) 
Minirhizotrons:  No sign of a treatment effect on turnover or production (number of new tips/number of tips).  The values look right, compared to what Natalie got on BB’s plots.  About 1/year.  Higher turnover at the surface, consistent with other studies.  In 2013, there is a significant age effect.  6 stands at Bartlett (C1, C2, C6, C7-9) and 2 at JB.  The 4 old have lower turnover than the 4 young+mid.  

Tim suggests we abandon the minirhizotrons.  There is so much subjectivity:  Is that a root or a fungal rhizomorph?  Image quality.  Everyone who does it at HB says they don’t want any part of it every again (Jackie, Natalie, Gerry, Hongzhan).  There are problems with the tubes shifting, because they are shallow.  

Tim proposes root screens.  They are easy and you know exactly what you’re getting.  They’re not very destructive, we could do a lot of them.  It works best if we put the screens in in November.  Like ingrowth cores, you don’t 
 get much if you put them in when the snow melts, something about the disturbance.  You have to get enough roots to quantify how long they live.  Melany 
 would like to be involved, what about destruction to the forest floor?
Hongzhang will write a paper on the respiration and fertility relationship. Melany will work on the lab incubations as an addition to this paper.  Kikang 
 should be an author on this paper, rather than publish the version that was in her thesis, which was before 2013 and included the trenched plots.  Hongzhang 
 and Tim will look at those data again; we might not include the trenched plots.  Were roots already growing in during the recovery from disturbance? Could include the root turnover, see if it’s related to respiration even if 
 neither has a treatment effect.  

Blowdown in HBo: Melany, Christy, Ruth

If it’s  true that the blowdown was primarily in the control, we could establish  another plot (but we won’t have growth over time, pre-treatment comparisons 
 to litter, etc.)  

Melany:  It’s a weird area, you move into rich pockets with lots of ash.  We had to  be careful where to put the young plots in 101, and Tim gave us that strange 
 shape to the control because it was the only way to fit it.

Ruth:  What would it mean to resurvey now, could we get the growth rate to this  point?  

Christy: no, the whole plot is down.

Ruth: We should get up a new plot as soon as we can--unless it’s an ash plot.

Melany--if  we keep going to the west, we can get away from the ash.  It might get rocky.

For a growth rate, what can we do?  Can we use our control for the Ca plot?  

Melany: If all the treatments are exactly the same, we won’t need the control!  Or if they are really different, we won’t need the control.

Ruth: Ten years from now we won’t care, and we’ll be glad we set up the new plot.

Christy:  It would be a lot of work, but we could use tree rings to get the pre-treatment growth rate. 

Matt’s map: HBM_HBO_2011.pdf

Summer Plans

Ruth, Adam, Craig, Brannon, Melany

Fertilization:  How long will it take to fertilize? June is easier to get people?

Plan on two weeks to fertilize using the summer crew baskets and site maintenance: 1-2 people one week

Inventory in C1, C2, C3:  1 stand/day for 3 people 
Respiration and minirhizotrons: see what Hongzhang gets

Mapping stems: 2 people (if one has to hold the target), 1 person, 3 hours/stand.  Who has a rangefinder?  Ask Colin Beier or Matt.  Any questions to report by July? Growth rates as a function of neighbor species, in C1-3.

Melany’s soils: most of the work will probably take place in Ohio.  Could use help sampling, might be a week, a month after the fertilization.  Consistency is important, 
 so maybe not a lot of people.  Incubation and extraction could be done in NH, this was too much work the time we also had the lawn project going on. Not the best undergrad project.  Maybe Shan will be in charge.

Snails: 4 people, 3-4 days, early August

Germinants: Omit the stands that don’t have any (young stands).  Early June, late enough to get the ash.  Good for an undergrad to present in July.

Sap flow: good project for one student, with help when changing sites, check data daily. Rotate sites.  C8, JBo, HB. (HB control is the farthest from the road)  

Caterpillars: (Nina Lany) Measuring caterpillar survival is more like an intensive effort for two people for a two-week period. First, I'd need to acquire a large number 
 of nearly identical caterpillars (hopefuly I'll be rearing these from pupae I've collected).  Then about two huge days of tying and experimentally placing them in the field, then daily checks for as long as they last. I'm 
 hoping to submit a paper within a month using these methods, so maybe I can get a feel for what reviewers have to say before doing it again.  Probably best to hold off on this until we have a good reason to measure it (e.g. we see a big difference in caterpillar growth rates and/or abundances on treated vs. untreated plots).

Growth trials are easier and are a better place to start.  A good project for a undergraduates (or Brannon?) to do in thier spare time could be: Do caterpillars grow differently on leaves from treated vs. untreated plots? The growth-differentiation-balance hypothesis (Herms and Mattson 1992 - The Dilemma of Plants: to grow or defend) predicts that when limitations on growth are eased, plants should be less well-defended against herbivores. 
 Testing this prediction is an easy but interesting bioassay that anyone could do even if no difference in foliar N is detected. It's cheap, I've got all the stuff we need, and I'll work with whoever is interested. I've done this in a paired t-test design while I'm living at a field station (= no 
 access to growth chambers) so that it's easy to start trials at staggered times without worrying about controlled conditions.  All we'd need is a balance that measures to the tenth of a mg.

Wait until we know we have treatment effects on foliage.

 REUs: Melany has requested 2 REUs who might want to join us for a couple of weeks. Cornell has one that was awarded last year and hasn’t been used yet.  Geoff 
 Wilson is recruiting for us.  We requested 1 or 2.  LTER gets 2? 

Previous Shoestring Summer Projects

Rick's Decomposition Results

Rick, Melany,  Adam,  Ruth, Craig

In June there was a P effect.  In October, not as significant (but the mean is still lowest)

When to pick up the last set of bags?  This June, or later?

Rick: June was early, the bags were under snow from the day after I put them in.

Melany: Learning about the initial rate of decay might give you a different answer than learning how much they contribute to mass remaining and the ecosystem. Try Lovett and Arthur for the mass remaining when they asymptote.  

Mesh size:  The coarser mesh is going slower, although previous studies said that the shredders are important to the rate of decomposition.  Rick read a recent review, the colembola and mites eat the primary consumers and slow them down.

Putting the litter into an extractor could get the bugs out before oven-drying.

Melany: roots grow into the bags and they weigh more than the leaves.

RIck: I don’t have roots, the bottom mesh is 64 um.  But I have fungus.  And stuff comes in from the top of the bag, I can’t always tell what’s new.  I have empty control bags and correct for mass accumulating in them.  But they 
 won’t get roots.

Melany:  You could measure the moisture content of your samples, which could account for a lot of variation in the decay rate.  You have to remove the material from the bag before drying (if the bag has moisture).  Roots are easier to remove from fresh than dried samples.

Analysis:  The three sets of replicate bags are averaged before they go into the analysis.  

Ruth: Try using the median, to reduce the effect of outliers. There are four bags remaining now.  Try subsampling from your three bags to see if two bags would have been enough.

Species mix effect:  The litter from the younger stands is decomposing more quickly, at least initially.  

Stands: Decomposition is happening more quickly in the older stands.

Could look at the mass of litter in these stands.  Craig or Yang must have 2011 and 2012; 2013 is on drying racks.  2010 is being sorted now. We have the mass of the forest floor from soil pits in C1, C2, and C9, but not C7.  We don’t have forest floor mass from C7--except from power cores.

Soil moisture and temperature are collected regularly with respiration.  Hongzhang has these data (and we should archive them).  

Melany has resin strip data, the 2012 might not be on the web site.  And did they do C7?

 BEF Meeting, Fertilization, Soil and enzyme 
 measurements, Foliage analysis, decomp, measuring growth or productivity

BEF meeting March 13.

Matt will attend.  Adam or Craig could attend, it’s during our spring break.  Not sure how important it is for more than Matt to attend.  Matt’s our hero. 
Fertilization

We are moving to one time per year:  two times is too much work, microbes are acclimated now, and we will have less disturbance to the stands.  “Trampling  is bad.”--Melany Fisk

The best time is when the trees have the most capacity for uptake.  Late May or early June. 

Last year, we used a bunch of ESF students in May (before field camp).  This worked great but it requires being lucky with the weather.  We’ll do it with the regular field crew and it should get done by mid-June, weather permitting.

Craig will tell Heather how much N fertilizer to order and when and where to deliver it.  We have 4 bags from last year at HB. The N is at HB and the P is at BEF.  We have enough P.  Does it need to be weighed before people arrive?  Early arrivals could be weighing. Memorial Day is May 26.  Our official summer start will be June 2, but we 
 will invite people to come earlier and weigh.  If it’s a late spring and the soils are wet, we’ll start fertilizing on June 9.  We might adjust as we find out when our crew members are available and how wet the soils are.

Soil and enzyme measurements this year.

Melany: The amount of P we are adding is high stoichiometrically, because we didn’t know how much adsorption to expect.  How can we tell whether we should adjust the rate?

Craig: Do we want to know the effect on soils in the absence of plants?

Melany: We could fractionate; the available pool is a small part of the story.  We want to know how much is getting fixed in unavailable forms.  Need to be selective about sampling; the fractionation is time-consuming.  To inform treatment in 2015.

Craig: The answer is going to differ by stand; N:P varies a lot.

Melany: Use pre-treatment data to select stands for measurement.  Shan could work on this; she’s going to learn the P fractionation from Tera.  Schedule a 
 future call.

Ruth: Is the effect on tree leaves important to our decision?  How about herbs as a bioindicator?  

Craig: Maybe next year, after we don’t walk on them so much this year.

How about Shinjini’s germinants?  There are 10 1x1 samples in each plot. Shinjini will have tissue concentrations from samples collected in 2012 and 2013.

We want to be cautious about changing the rate too any times.  Discuss again in a year.

Minirhizotron results (postponed)

(Kikang, Hongzhan, Tim? Nat can’t make it)

The timing for this call didn’t work out with Kikang in Korea, but Tim and 
 Hongzhan met and made a plan for analyzing this year’s images. 

 Roots and Soils 
 (Brannon, Franklin, Tony, Ruth)

Roots

Brannon will make a chart of root data sets, showing sites, dates, and diameter classes.  We have three types of measurements.  

1. Soil pits:  2003 soil pits from chronosequence sites, 2004 soil pits from the Bartlett intensives. Data are posted on the web site.  (0-.5, .5-1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-20, >20 mm)
2. Tim’s PVC cores.  Waiting for the data from Alexis.  (0-1, 1-5, >5 mm)
3. April’s power cores. Brannon will compile a list of root data from the power cores, including those processed by Lin and Kikang (JB and HB) for which we have root mass (0-1, 1-5, >5 mm). The Bartlett roots were described by length by Lin, Kikang, and Franklin. 
4. There were also cores collected by Natalie for Franklin’s project, he has length for those but not mass.) For the roots that Franklin used for mycorrhizal colonization (Bartlett power cores), we have length but not mass.  We have data on SRL (length per mass) for the relevant species (Yanai et al. 2009) from Hubbard Brook and Huntington. The AM roots were processed, stained, and discarded (except for those on slide).  The EM roots are still around and Franklin will check on the upper diameter limits. The will use sugar maple for the AM root length.  For the EM roots, they will weight beech and birch by the proportion of basal area in the subplot.

Soils

We reviewed Tony’s list of soil data sets, started by Kikang.  This will be ready for posting when the color coding is explained, the second sheet has all cells visible, and the data sheets are removed (data should be in one 
 place only to prevent confusion in case of corrections).
 We also have frozen samples from trenches that we took in case of need. Tony made an inventory of samples in the freezers in Syracuse.  

Soil Moisture and Sap flow

(Lily, Michele, Joe, Mark, Ruth)

Soil moisture

Joe sent soil moisture data.  HBo JBo JBm C1 C6 C8 (except Adan was doing C8 control). Mark will check with Heidi as to whether they plan to continue monitoring 
 soil moisture in C8. It will be helpful to have the leaf-off comparison of soil moisture. Need to download data:  Lily could get HBo JBo C8, where she is working.  ESF 
 crews will be visiting in October and November.  October:  Check whether the wires are intact between the blue conduit and the ground.
November:  Download data from all the sites and send to Mark (or archive on web site). Michele and Lily have the USB cable that connects to a laptop, at Plymouth. The software is available on line.  Ruth will purchase a cable so the ESF has one by November. Whoever downloads data will need the ECH2O utility, connection cord, and a 
 laptop to bring into the field. They should use the “Download new” option to get all data since the last collection date. The data loggers hold 36,000 scans, which will definitely last over the winter. Joe remains interested in the analysis and write-up of these data.

Sap flow

We looked at Lily’s latest results slides.  The Ca trees have higher sap flow than the controls, for all three species.  There are some funny peaks; Mark recommends taking the median rather than the mean.  This should be less 
 sensitive to electrical anomalies. There are zeros in the data set, these have been set during processing with 
 Baseline, Ram Oren’s software.  The equation is simple (sapflow = f(voltage) = 119*(B/x-1)^1.2), so it seems like we should just process it ourselves. Michele will chat with Nathan Phillips.  Two issues: not to lose the information that’s near zero, and what’s the effect of choosing the 
 baseline. Mark will write some R code that they can use to compare to Baseline. Need to spend some time looking at the pattern that’s giving a peak at 1 a.m.  Probably looking at the data by tree and date, think of more ways to display the data. Talk again at 8:30 a.m. Oct 9, Marko (Polo) may join us from Seoul (ILTER). 

Soil P methods (Tony, Melany, Haiyan)

Melany will send five samples to Tony so he can see how his methods differ from hers (hers were fresh, his are dried).  She will choose samples of low and high concentration.  Differences may be due to other differences between the labs, not just wet vs. dry samples.
Melany:  Do some samples in duplicate, and do a blank. Melany doesn’t have duplicates from this sample set.  If they have outliers, they redo them. She thinks that if they did duplicates they would see a lot of variation, but they can’t duplicate everything. Tony will need to adjust the soil:solution ratio to account for moisture content. Melany used 5 g fresh to 40 ml.  She will send a spreadsheet that includes the fresh soil moisture content, so he can decide how much dry soil mass to use.

Don’t oven dry soils before extracting them.  To express the results on an oven-dry basis requires drying a separate subsample.

Fall Field and lab Work

Attending: Tony, Ruth, Rick, Christy, Craig 

Fall Field Work

Soil respiration and minirhizotrons were measured from Sept 6-10 by Hongzhang, Alexis, and Tony.  Thanks!

Li Kui is a grad student at ESF who would consider taking a weekend with us this fall.

Litter collection, once at the end of the season (late Oct or early Nov) , 2 days. Maybe combine this with respiration and minirhizotrons (could be cold and snowy)
 Litterfall will be oven dried and weighed  (no sorting).  Could be a student project (test for a treatment effect, compared to pre-treatment masses). Rick will be collecting another round of litterbags.

Soil bug sorting: 
We can recruit at ESF for undergrad volunteers (and 5 hours/week of work-study).  Craig will train.  He will swing through Bartlett on Oct 4-5 (w Becca) and connect with Rick to divide the samples.  Start with big ones? 
Discuss how to distribute samples across sorters to avoid bias.

Soil processing:

2010 samples were sent from Michigan to Cornell; Fahey (Alexis) will grind them and Christy will analyze them.  Why do we want to analyze trench samples from C2 and C6, where we already have soil pits?  

Tony has a cheat sheet for soils data, in various formats; we will review and circulate next week.

Roots: 
   Brannon, 
 for a class project, will compare our three types of root collections, 
 calculating detectable differences by stand (or stand age, which he is 
 interested in).  We have:  Roots from quantitative soil pits, Roots 
 from power-cores 30-50, roots from Tim’s surface cores.  Brannon will finish 
 weighing the 30-50 roots from Bartlett and send the results to Christy.

Website: 
Ruth is working with Heather to get data sets posted and logically organized on the web site.  Please send feedback if you don’t find things where you expect them. 

Future Agenda Items:  

Results from leaves and soils in Ca and controls, Craig and Shinjini will plan a date to discuss. Tony will have soil results to share in a few weeks. Sap flow (Lily, Michele), gastropods (Cheryl) blowdown in HBo (control)--should we add another control plot?  (include Tim, outside this area was different, compositionally?)

Web site, shall we add sample location, delete file format Data documentation (needs work)

Procedure for people requesting to work in our plots

Sample processing (always) Ca plot leaves

2012 leaves sorting leaves sample inventory

Field plans (seasonally)

Future calls: Fridays at 8 a.m., Fall semester

Haiyan, Ruth, Melany, and Mariann 

How many samples and subsamples per stand?

Haiyan is not used to taking so many cores per plot.  
Melany:  We take more because our spatial variation is so high.  If you take fewer, your variation is too high.  Important for repeatability (30 get composited)

Ruth: It’s not important to have replication within a plot because we have multiple stands. Melany:  If you wanted to detect change over time in one plot, you would need replication.

Ruth: We don’t have questions about particular plots.

Chronosequence stands have 5 lines for stand inventory, 3 baskets on each line for litterfall. Lines are 50 m long. 
Ruth:  I think you want to choose between 5 (composited) samples per stand (1 per line) and 1 (composited) sample per stand. 
soil depths: Oe, Oa, and top 10 of the mineral soil.  This is better than using mineral soil horizons because they are so variable.

Methods: 
 resin strips:  8 per plot (in the Melany caution-tape areas, so not as representative of the plot).  How to spread them out?  Could be interesting to record the species present at each resin strip.  Melany:  1 strip is not enough, you’ll want replication at each plot.  Not so useful for generating a weighted average value for the stand. 10 per transect would be 50 per stand.  30 per stand would still be a lot. We aren’t dealing with fertilized plot.

depths: only one depth (good for numbers). Look at Melany’s results, and focus on controls to see the variability.
extraction:  13 stands or 65 lines:  How long would this take to process?  

incubation and re-extraction

Question to be answered

Melany:  What drives the variation in N mineralization across our stands?   

Joel, Melany, Ruth, Brannon

Ingrowth cores: Melany, Joel, Brannon

Issues with size class of particles. Fine particles are harder to remove from hyphae. Constant size fraction:  quartz control can be the same. With ingrowth core it might not be as critical because the soil affects water. Analyzing roots and hyphae; must NOT have grains of apatite stuck to them. This could be a problem with finely ground apatite. Higher weight percent of coarser fraction would ensure that some apatite dissolves. Similar dissolution rate to wollastonite suggests that it should work ok. We could install extra cores to test for dissolution before we collect the root-colonized cores.  How would we do that?  Extractable P -- labile P extraction might leach some P from apatite.   We could stick resin strips in the cores.  They might affect water movement, so use spare cores. We plan to install ingrowth cores consisting of soil mixed with sand (control) or soil mixed with apatite, in June 2013.   Harvest planned for approximately September 2015. Specific dates.  The LTER review is June 26-28.  We could install cores the 3 days before that, or the 3 days after that.  We should check with Ruth about plot fertilizing dates, which will probably be between the review and the annual meetings.  

Questions.  Does excess N promote: A shift in root depth distribution toward deeper roots? Compare root length and biomass in 0-10, 10-20, and 20-30 cm depth increments (control cores) between control, +N, and +P plots.

Expect more roots in 0-10 in +P plots; a shift toward more roots in 20-30 cm in +N? (in control cores). A shift in mycorrhizal colonization toward deeper roots?

Expect mycorrhizal colonization rates to shift from relatively higher in surface in +P to relatively higher in 20-30 cm in +N (control cores).  

More active foraging for apatite-derived P?

Expect root and hyphal proliferation in cores with apatite, in + N compared to control and +P plots  (any depth?)

More weathering of apatite in + N plots?

Expect higher REE in hyphae and roots in +N plots (any depth?)

General notes:  be sure to keep subsamples of soil and apatite that go into cores. Compare later to what is in the cores when we collect them.  Need to know what the roots saw.

We weren’t sure whether we wanted finely ground apatite, or something closer to sand size.  We’d like cores to incubate almost two growing seasons to ensure good colonization.  We want to avoid running out of apatite (which might happen  if we used finely ground apatite and it all dissolved in the first year) but we also want to avoid having low dissolution (if it is too coarse).   So we talked about trying cores with finely ground and cores with coarsely ground apatite to make sure that something works.

General question:  can we distinguish between a foraging response to available P and a weathering effort?  I had written in my notes :  Quantify REE in hyphae and roots, compare to root colonization (for P) to distinguish response to P from weathering effort.  But I can’t remember what I was thinking that meant.
 Numbers. We have done 5 or 6 cores per treatment in the past, and generally wished we 
 had a couple more (because some always seem to have unusually low numbers of roots).

Per plot: Install 8 cores as controls 8 cores with apatite extra cores with resin strips to test dissolution (Note: Can we calculate how much P comes out?) 16 cores per plot;* 4 plots =  64 cores per stand times 3 stands = 192 cores

Do we need to do NP plots?  Maybe not, but it might show something interesting.  It isn’t hard to put the cores in, so maybe just put them all in and go from there.   

Do we want fertilizer to go into the cores?  Probably not because we want to test the big-picture tree response and avoid small-scale foraging responses. So we should cover cores during fertilization.  

 We could do 3 mature forest stands. 3 Bartlett?  Or, C7, HB, JB? The young forests are an interesting question based on Ca patterns.  But the age pattern is independent of treatment.  We could do control plots only in 3 young in Bartlett, and control, N, and P in mature. On the other hand, any responses to treatment are likely to be larger in young stands.  So we could just do young stands?  But it would be useful to know how young stands compare to old. If we did 3 young, 3 mature in Bartlett, 72 per stand, that’s 432. What about mixing coarse and  fine sizes in one core: 16 cores per plot* 3 plots per stand *6 stands = 288 cores.  That would be more manageable.  If  the fine apatite all disappears, then we’d have the coarse for the 2nd year?  Maybe that would cover all bases.

Soil nutrient availability in the Chronosequence stands

Ruth sent email to Haiyan. Yes, everyone thinks it would be great to get some measures of soil nutrient availability in the chronosequence stands.  It would be useful to many projects, we have those measures in the MELNHE stands and it would expand data sets for lots of other variables. I know we can't predict what the answers will be, so it's difficult to plan for publication, but I thought it would be good to think about what might result in a lead-author publication for you from this effort.  

1. When talking with Tim, Melany, and Craig last week, I asked what the status was of BBD (beech bark disease) assessment in these stands (and in the MELNHE stands, which would double the sample size).  I can't remember the answer; it's complicated because we have information that we regard as unreliable.  You could ask Tony to show you what we have.  I said that there was only a 50% chance that there would be any interesting patterns; Tim said 
    10%.  BBD is patchy and not predictable.  I still think there could be a paper reporting on how patchy it is in our stands.  Craig said there would be a pattern of less disease in younger stands; has this pattern been 
    described in other publications?  Since we also have tree size, you could possibly test whether a tree has to get old enough to get bad symptoms or whether the stand age controls the development of the disease.  (Tony reviewed this literature; he might know the answer.)  To be able to write a paper on this topic (which might, as Tim predicts, show no influence of soil properties) we would need to get on top of the BBD surveys (the field-based visual inventory, not the photographic one, which we will collect this summer but analyze much later.)  You could lead this paper with Tony among your co-authors.  It would be nice if he got a publication from the work he did on BBD, which is now not part of his thesis.  But it might not be publishable if there are no patterns!
2. Stand age and species composition.  Other people (such as Gary Lovett's group in the Catskills, which includes Mary Arthur, who worked in our stands) have studied soil nutrient availability under trees of different species and found differences in nitrogen cycling and base cation status. You would have to read on this topic to see what we might contribute.  With the MELNHE and the Chronosequence stands, there would be a total of 26 or 27 stands you could use to see if there are effects of stand age distinct from those of species (which change with succession in our forest type.  

The tricky part of this idea is that we want information at the stand level, for our other purposes (we have soil pits in these stands but not associated with the five lines per stand; we have litterfall chemistry but aggregated by stand).  We have species composition information (stand inventory and leaf litter) for 5 lines per stand.  The lines are generally 50 m long.  So the represent a range of species influences.  The best way to see species influences is probably to analyze samples from particular points in the stand, not a composite sample from a long line or a whole stand.  I was going to recommend analyzing a single sample from each stand, since the stand is the experimental unit in most of our use of the data.

So, again, you should think about this and develop a proposal if you think it’s worth pursuing.  One of the questions will be (notes just end here!)

Heidi, Michelle, Adan, Craig, Adam, and Ruth talked on Skype

Focus on July 1-August 15, Adan will be staying in the Cottage, so he won’t need help with batteries, etc.

Soil moisture monitoring is ongoing in C8 and will be added in C2; happy to share the data with Michele Pruyn’s group.  They are at 5, 15, 25, and 50 cm at one point in each treatment plot, recording hourly. Haiyan Wang is thinking about how to monitor moisture in a more spatially extensive way, periodically.  We’ll share her proposal, hope for your feedback, and share the results.  Heidi suggests a sensor that can be lowered into a sleeve, if it’s important to monitor with depth.  They are also collecting pre-dawn moisture potential (with a pressure chamber, shooting down branches).  So this could be an opportunity to get leaves again for analysis.  This would be biweekly.  We would be interested in sharing leaves and analyses again this year.  Similar in scope, about 100 trees.

Relocation of trees, the ones inside the control plot were moved out.  They also have a less destructive way to set up the equipment than the posts they installed before.  For the ones that aren’t in use, is it better to leave them in or remove them?  Let’s decide by Aug 15 if possible.

Better to monitor trees in dominant positions, planning to go up on Friday to pick better trees.  They can mark them Friday.  Tony’s BBD trees are marked with caution tape.

Notes from Michele Pryun:

We also were planning on measuring sapflow at Calcium vs. Treated plots on the same trees... Lily was planning to set up as soon as the roads clear. Our plan was also not to run the system all summer but just early-on and then perhaps another ~4week run later in the summer into September.

We were wondering about soil moisture probes at the control plot. Mark has one out at the Calcium plot but we could not find one at the control and we wondered if that was because there is already a system out there monitoring that? Also, Heidi are you guys getting PAR and rH at the control?

Soils

Kikang, Matt, Joel, Craig, Ruth, Tony, and Yang talked on Skype.

What to do about missing Oie samples from the fourth soil pits (2010)?

There was a mistake with mass; we might have a field mass but not a dry mass.  We could use the mass from the other pits, or we could use the wet-dry conversion from the other pits.  Matt suggests using an average 
 conversion from our pits at similar dates.  It might be 30% of the mass, Matt thinks.  Matt will decide what makes sense.

Joel did not receive these samples.  Matt thinks the samples were in the garage in Bartlett last year.  There will be six samples sent on Monday May 13 (if they are found).  Joel has some trenched samples that have been 
 waiting for analysis.  They will be using a new machine; the last one went down the day after he promised to run them.

The Oa samples were sieved to 2 mm instead of 6 mm; we think there is not a big difference (it’s more work to sieve to 2 mm).

If the Oie samples have not been sieved or ground, Craig will bring them to Syracuse, run them through the Wiley mill and send a sample to Cornell and one to Michigan.

N in the 4th plot--Craig asked, Tim will pulverize, Christy will run

Which samples should be sent to Cornell?  Joel has a set that doesn’t include the Oie; he can send what he has to Cornell.  He will need to confirm how much he was sent.

Weird outlier numbers:  Joel checked and couldn’t find any reason to doubt them but maybe it’s worth putting one through the extract again if more are coming into the queue.

What to do about estimating the mass of soil accidentally discarded from power core samples?

These data are posted on the web site but they are not correct for mass. The 30-50 cm depth increment was divided and half went to Syracuse for root picking. Unfortunately, nobody was supervising the student who was picking the roots and she didn’t weigh the samples before washing away the soil.  

We lost all the samples from JB and HB.  We do have some data from Bartlett. There are 5 cores per plot; only in one plot do we have all the cores.

C5: plot 1 (5 samples), plot 2 (1 sample), plot 3 (1 sample), plot 4 (none):  7 of 20

C7: plot 1 (3 samples), plot 2 (1 sample), plot 3 (3 samples), plot 4 (2 samples): 9 of 20

How shall we correct for the missing masses?  For C5 and C7, we will use the stand average.

We could look at C5, C7, and Carrie Rose’s cores to see if there is any relationship between the 10-30 mass and the 30-50 mass.  

We hope Christy will follow up; we don’t know of anyone who will use these data before resampling for change over time.

Matt asked:  Also, has anyone done texture analysis on any of these?  I know we did composited C horizons from the 2003-4 pits.  I wonder if JB is finer textured than some of the more typical upland granitic till sites.

Melany said:  We've done soil texture on a bunch of sites (mid and old, bartlett?).  The data are in that spreadsheet that's on the website. If we haven't done the remainder of the sites (I think we have but I don't remember) then we should , for consistency.

Kikang said these are 0-10 cm, and they are on the web, for all the sites.

Future soil sampling

Melany:  I'd like to have some sort of communication network about all future soil sampling.  This way I can talk with anyone new to the sites about how they'll sample soils.  Also, we should be coordinating so that 
 whenever soil samples are taken, as many people as possible can make use of them (to reduce sampling impact).  For example, if anyone collects any soil this summer we'd love to do a few assays.

Craig:  We should get samples from the Ca plots, we want to know the pH.  

Matt: Could be a core split into depth increments or a profile sampled by horizon.

Craig will coordinate with Melany and ask how she prefers the samples to be taken.

Sap flow

Michele, Mark, Lily, and Ruth talked on Skype.

What is the relationship with the UNH group?

They share some trees, there was an interest in comparing methods.  They have soil moisture in the Bartlett C8 control (if not, we need to measure it).

 Lily’s project

Roots, conductivity measurements, Nat's methods for vitality. Lily presented a poster!  Send it around. Pick times to measure sap flow at Bartlett and JB. Send us your proposal with a wish list of measurements.

What can we do to help?

Visit the site once a week to hook, unhook batteries, change out sensors that aren't working, Bartlett C8, JB mature.  At HB, they can get help from one of their REUs. 
Adam:  Let us know what you want and we’ll try to work it into our field plans.
Michele:  Getting all the sites to be running at the same time is difficult.

Ruth:  Why do you want them all to be running at the same time?  If you think it’s weather dependent, you could include the relevant measurements as covariates.

Michele:  Microsensors are collecting PAR, RH, T, VPD. Mark has soil moisture. It’s probably a good idea to think through the data analysis to decide how important it is to have simultaneous measurements. Mark is available to advise on statistical analysis; there will also be a new statistician. 
Mark:  You can see seasonal ET from the eddy flux tower at Bartlett, on the Ameriflux site.  You can see the envelope of the maximum ET, Mark will be looking at what explains deviation from that maximum. These variables will likely be the same ones that help Lily’s analysis.

Stomatal conductance

Michele had the IR gas analyzer (PP Systems) repaired ($1000!) and would like to have it used on the Ca treatment plots.  Lily would be more likely to take on branch conductance, but stomatal conductance is beyond the scope of her project. This would be done in conjunction with shooting branches for foliar analysis 
 (Adam will be doing this for his sugar maple project).  Craig wants to get leaves this year in the Ca plots. Craig, Franklin, and Adam will talk about how they want to pursue this (last year they initiated the the stomatal density work).  There could be opportunities to involve an undergrad or visiting scientist. 

Rick, Joe, Melany, Ruth, Adam, Craig, Kikang

Rick’s proposal (sent by email), he will do some preliminary testing.

Other logistical issues: fertilizer deliver to Rick’s place: only if it’s early and raining do we need extra help (Craig) to receive.  Check in closer to the date, by the Tuesday they’ll know.  Rick will purchase totes and tarps and send us a receipt for reimbursement.  We’re ordering 12 50-lb 
bags.

Decision: litter sorted by species (2010 litter is still available to sort), let’s plan on it!

Field plans

Fertilizer:  This year, we need MSP, Craig will pick up in Johnstown en route to the field. NH4NO3 can be delivered to Conway.  They deliver on Wednesdays.  So we want it on May 8, after 2:30, if going to Rick’s place.  Second delivery:  June 26

Craig will ask Mike whether we could store fertilizer at his place.  If not and we store it at Rick’s place, we need something to store it in, Rick will not have garage space for us.  Could be a shed, some kind of bins, covered 
 with tarps.  Craig will let Rick know.

Check the number of bags.  There were  24 bags delivered in 2012, 12 on May 7 and another 12 on June 26, from W.H. Milikowski. They were bought out by Griffin Greenhouse Supply, and we should now be set up in their system with a new blanket PO.

Housing: Notes from the Bartlett meeting in January: 
 In the future there may be an upper limit on the number of tents on site (limited to 6 people in a max of 6 tents). Discuss with Markio? It’s not clear to me how this would affect short-term tenters; the concern seemed more to be about long-term tenting though this was not explicit. 

Bhavya, Christy, Ruth, Yang, Kikang, Yang

By the way, Christy has treatments of N and S additions in 3 sites, stands of 2 ages in NY, NaNO3 should raise the pH, and (NH3)2NO3 should raise the pH, 50 kg N/ha/yr, plus S at the same rate. Bhavya sent a powerpoint 
 presentation. We have samples you should know about.

PRETREATMENT:

Frozen litter from 2010 (pre-treatment) could be sorted. We sorted litter  in 2009, in 2008 we have 3 plots per stand. We have pre-treatment leaves shot in August 2008, 2009, 2010.  (ask Craig). Earlier years of litter--Christy says the Fahey lab is isotope contaminated.

Roots: C9, HB wedge, by depth, sorted by species (Yanai, R.D., M.C. Fisk, T.J. Fahey, N.L. Cleavitt, and B.B. Park. 2008. Identifying roots of northern hardwood species: patterns with diameter and depth.  Can. J. For. Res.  38(11):  2862-2869).  Roots: Soil pits produced roots, by depth down below 50 cm.  Park, B.B., R.D. Yanai, M.A. Vadeboncoeur, and S.P. Hamburg. 2007. Estimating root biomass in rocky soils using pits, cores and allometric 
equations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71: 206-213 
Yanai, R.D., B.B. Park, and S.P. Hamburg.  2006. The vertical and horizontal distribution of roots in northern hardwood stands of varying age. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 450-459

We are trying to publish the chemistry of roots by diameter and depth, Ruth will send.

POST-TREATMENT:

Litter: For 2012, we have bags of litter from 200 baskets.  All the stands in which we have baskets: HB, JB, and B.

Shinijini’s plans

Shinjini sent a powerpoint describing the seedling survey.  They counted and identifed germinants 
 in 1x1 m plots.  Survivorship between June and August looks highest in the control.  Not because of trampling? They weren’t trampled after we counted them; were marked off.  But they were trampled (Is this significant?)  

Lost data were found? Shinjini and Matt corrected mistakes with plot number and date.  It’s only a problem in C8 plot 5.  

Ruth:  Try graphing August vs. June and we’ll know which plots have few observations.

Stats:  repeated measures? block by stand.  include age? What about species?  Analyze numbers as well as survival.  Different models might apply to different species.  Density dependence?  Maybe for sugar maple and beech, not for birch? She collected beech and sugar maple (in the buffer zone) in and reported root:shoot ratios.  Error bars would be good; box plots are even better. Statistics: ANOVA.  She didn’t find a relationship with soil measurements.Seedlings are smaller where soil P is high.  Franklin says the mycorrhizal network is better established.  Or is this driven by something else at the 
 stand level?  The pattern was not as strong with N.  Try N:P.  Moisture and root:shoot also goes in the unexpected directions.

Franklin: Do a giant correlation matrix of all the variables. Account for stand in the statistical models. 
Plans: resurvey and mark (so as not to confuse them with newer germinants). Fertilization starts on May 13.  Or maybe we start weighing fertilizer on May 13, and you have some time to take some people around in advance of the people fertilizing.  Resurvey in August--we can try to do that; Shinjini won’t be there.  Let us know how late it has to be.  Good for a summer project since they get the answer right away.  Late July might be okay.

Kikang’s Respiration results

Kikang, Melany, Tim, Ruth, Yang, Tony, Rick (briefly)

Kikang worked up the microbial respiration results both from lab incubations and trenched plots in the field..  Kikang, fill in your main results here.

Minirhizotrons:  in JB, root turnover was higher than at Bartlett.  Old is slower than young, which is consistent with the old stands having more root biomass but not higher soil respiration.  JB had lower soil respiration than Bartlett, not statistics yet (small difference). Tim met with Bhavya yesterday, she wants to work on enyzmes, so she would like to reference the respiration results but not to collect them every month. Ask Matt and Melany about adding all the measurement locations to the HB graphs. 

Email from Rick

On my list to talk about is Litter chemistry, pulling litter bags and Litter arthropods/invertebrate sampling. I am not sure if sequestration can remove the approval of the supplement but assuming I am good my initial thoughts 
 are below.

Litter Chemistry

I  would like to get just initial C:N:P and Lignin to include as potential covariates. The samples work out as 2 litter mixes X 4 nutrient treatments X replication.  I can get up to 4 replicates so I would max out at 32 samples. I have no idea how to do that work so I would need to at least start with someone and have a place to do it. The alternative of course is a willing collaborator.

Pulling the litter bags

I feel like I need to consult with someone with good stats skills about the analysis before I begin collecting the litter bags back. This doesn't have to be during a lab meeting. The design overall hits a lot of possible variables but the nesting looks tricky. I have 10 replicates in the field so the two options I am considering are

1. Pull at 10 different times - I would need to be able to transform the data to linear to meet assumptions. This would give me the most   fine-grained data on mass loss which may be valuable for looking at the   effects of invertebrates. I would likely pull these over two years with more samples this year than next and leave some roo for lost/damaged samples.  Maybe take 5 samples this year and up to 5 next year.
2. Pull 3 bags at each of 3 different times, twice this year and once next year.  This hedges my bets against not being able to transform the data to meet assumptions while still giving me more information over time.

Litter invertebrates/arthropods

1. Sampling the litter meso/macro fauna was part of my original plan so I need to work out how I will do that and where I might get the needed equipment.  This is also an area that I think will work well with my classroom so I have more ideas on this work too. 
2. Testing the relative strengths of trophic and nutrient effects on litter mass loss - One prediction is for greater relative trophic effects at higher nutrient levels.  I have heard that soil nutrients increase from BEF to HB to JB.  I don't know exactly what data to use to verify this. Assuming that is the case and using stands at those three locations combined with nutrient treatment plots I might have a nice nutrient gradient over which to manipulate trophic interactions.  I still have some reading to do on this one.

Fertilizer storage

Any chance we can get a small plastic outdoor storage "shed".  I say shed but whatever is just big enough to work and keep things dry outside, totes or whatever.  The garage may not be the best place this time around as I 
 have had to store and work on some of my motorized equipment in there this winter and into spring.  I am still happy to store on my property just need to do it more away from the building.

Thanks,

Rick

Summer plans

Fertilization in May

At fertilization in May, who will we have?  Craig, Kikang, Adam, Tony, Yang, Haiyan.

Coming from Ohio: Owen, Shinjini, and maybe Chunmei, maybe an undergrad. We should aim for some undergrads from ESF.  Craig will advertise in his Forest Ecology class. Adam has recruited a couple of guys for winter work.  Aim for 12 total, 3 crews of 4 people. Ask the undergrads whether Sunday May 12 is a good travel day or whether they attend Commencement.  Leave Sunday or Monday, return the following Sunday or Monday.  5 days of field work.  Need to know who can stay for how long.  If it rains, we’ll have roots ready to pick. Ask Heidi’s lab for a couple of people.  Ask Tim Fahey if he has anybody who would like to come. Ask Heather to reserve a van for May 12 to 19. 
Fertilizer: We need to order MSP this year.  Heather, did we order 3 years supply 2 years ago?  We should order another 3 years now. Most of the P is already weighed!  Adam organized this at the end of last summer. We have 1.5 bags of N in reserve (at HB).  Heather has probably already scheduled the N we need, but they always have a problem. When Adam goes to Bartlett, he should bring back fertilizer to Kikang can prepare the fertilizer for the respiration collars. Ask Shinijini when she would like to schedule time with us. Ditto for Tony and Mariann Johnson. Review who we have already recruited. For the field season: Adam, Tony, Yang.
Undergrads:  Rose and possibly two others in Kikang’s soil class. Not sure: Craig, Franklin, Kikang: may move on to next opportunity!

Haiyan (Chinese professor) will start in May

June: 26-28 LTER Mid-term review

July 1-8: second fertilization (minus July 4)

July 9-11:  HBES Anniversary and annual meeting

August: don’t forget Huntington (Yang)

What needs to be done:

Painting boundaries: team of 2 people, several stands per day. Adam can look up which stands were done in the Chronosequence. This is about a week’s work for 2 people.

Site maintenance:  2 people, takes a week, end of May

roots: 70-80 samples, 200 hours, how many days of rain? 5 people* 4 hrs * 10 days. 2010 litter is still frozen, germinants, need Shinjini’s research plan, litter baskets, spring and summer, pull out twigs and weigh, canopy assessment of Adam’s sugar maple trees, tissue sampling, Adam and Yang tree mapping.

Notes from today's BEF Cooperator's Meeting (as edits
in the agenda):

Chris couldn't tell us how many bunkhouse rooms we'll be allocated yet, only that we need to wait for FS plans to get finalized.  With project-level funding so uncertain, it may be a while.

One thing that came to mind during the permitting discussion - how are we planning to handle the (increasing?) number of black locust seedlings in plot C8-1?  Clipping and/or herbicide?  Just leave them and monitor?--matt

BARTLETT EF COOPERATORS MEETING -- USFS, Durham, NH 09:00 - 14:00

Time    Topic and presenter

0900     Welcome, introductions, and safety messages for the day – John Brissette

0920 - 1000 Request for research proposals discussion

Current cooperators working on BEF. Improving the approval process – twice yearly approval of proposals (April 1 and October 1) with a two week response period for approval, further questions/problems or rejection. New form will be distributed to all cooperators soon.

Note that this is a yearly renewal process!

NEPA review – what triggers it; what level of analysis is required; who will gather the necessary information to complete a Categorical Exclusion if needed (examples)

Safety concerns for our cooperators – have the hazards been assessed; check-in/out procedures; pre-shooting notifications/protocols. This is a new addition; proposal must address what safety procedures will be used (i.e. a check in/out board for all crew members).  Also, they had a lengthy list of who needs to be notified when you’re 
 shooting:

• local police (e.g. Bartlett)
• Markio and/or Chris
• Ranger District (Saco or Pemi depending on site)

1000 – 1030    Facilities update and discussion

Lab renovations – new cabinets and counters

Lab space – currently at maximum usage

Old office bathroom project

Reminder - Be sure to wipe up water on floor every time!

General upkeep – project leaders need to keep better tabs on crews especially on clean and tidy common work/living spaces. This is especially true in the lab space.  It sounds like we were doing our part in general, but overall things needed to be cleaner, especially when there are multiple groups using the space at the same time.

Chemical storage
Chris needs to be notified and given an MSDS for everything we put in the flammables cabinets. No overnight dogs on administrative site (apparently there were complaints?) Well behaved, day visiting canines may be welcome in the lab only. Possibility of needing to charge for beds in the future. There was general agreement that most PI’s (at least those with large funded projects) would be willing and able to pay something for the housing on site. I made the point that there is also a decent amount of unfunded research and some funded at very low levels (e.g. grad students and undergrads not part of a larger project) for which this would pose a hardship.

• One problem with this is that the rate is set very high in the FS hierarchy, cannot be changed, and is more than double for beds in the white house than for beds in the bunkhouse (this has to do with the ratio of people to kitchens, bathrooms, and laundry facilities. 
• Presumably we could work out an undercharge in terms of time if it comes to that; it’s certainly not equitable in any objective way?
• Some interest was expressed in handling this all more informally; is there a way we and other large projects could contribute to a “facilities fund” that  would be housed somewhere besides the FS, to be used for things like the bathroom repairs when needed?  Who would host this?  Maybe HBRF or something similar?
• Discussions about this will be ongoing; Dave Hollinger seemed to be taking the lead. I said that Ruth would probably be interested in participating in this discussion as a stakeholder. In the future there may be an upper limit on the number of tents on site (limited to 6 people in a max of 6 tents).  Discuss with Markio?  It’s not clear to me how this would affect short-term tenters; the concern seemed more to be about long-term tenting though this was not explicit.

10:30 – 10:45  Break – light refreshments will be available

10:45 – 11:15  Current and future activity discussion

Timber sale is still active – use the roads and park vehicles with that in mind. Proposed future sale activity by compartment.

• Nothing affecting us in the next couple years, though some in the neighborhood of C2/C4 which might affect access in the same way that the cutting 
   below C3 did last year. 

Upcoming road work – replacing AOP on Stanley Road; NEON power extension on the Lower Road. Neither of these are near our plots.

Upcoming BEF forest inventory – prep for 2014

11:15 – 11:30  NEON update – does this conflict with the early 2013 cooperators’ field seasons? Previous work suggested a late summer construction start due to 
 cooperators’ work in the area of the new tower. Some discussion of how much they will need to take over all the parking spaces on the lower road; again doesn’t affect access to the MELNHE plots.

11:30 - 11:45   HBRF environmental education update – Geoff Wilson. He did a great job talking up our experience with the RET program!

Lunch On your own

13:00 – 13:15  Further discussion on the morning topics – thank you for attending

13:15 – 14:00  Time for small group cooperator discussions – on your own

Other issues raised:

USFS will no longer be able to pay for the internet account that is connected to the public wifi on site, 
 since there is now a dedicated USFS network line available.  Andrew Richardson will cover it for one more year (because the Ameriflux tower uses this connection), 
 but after that it’s unclear how it will be paid for after that (NEON will have its own dedicated line out to the tower site).  Some ideas included having the UNH Ag Expt Station pay for it, possibly funneling the money through HBRF.  Something to keep an eye on.  I said that most PI’s I know would be willing to pay a share of this very small cost ($1000/yr?) to better keep in touch with their students on site!  I know it improves my productivity tremendously to have internet access there!

There is a draft data sharing policy which will be distributed soon. The idea is a reasonable sharing requirement for approved research at BEF.  Most NSF 
 grants require sharing/archiving anyway – this seems 
 like less stringent than the LTER policy.

2013 MELNHE update

Shoestrings, Here's an update of activities this season and some notes about the upcoming season.   

Accomplishments

It was a mast year for sugar maple and beech. Survivorship, leaf area, root length, and above- and belowground biomass have been quantified in beech and maple germinants from summer 2012.  Roots are stored for mycorrhizal analyses.  Roots and shoots are stored for possible nutrient analysis.  (Shinjini, Miami OH)

Sap flow measurements in HB Ca plots (Plymouth State crew) and Bartlett N&P plots (UNH crew). Leaves shot in all calcium plots for chemistry and stomatal density counts (Craig).  Leaves shot in C2, C8 (and HB?) in all treatment plots (UNH Crew) N and P availability were assayed with resin strips in all stands but Hubbard Brook (Ca plots included).  In +Ca plots, resin-available P was 
 nearly zero (Fisk lab).  

N mineralization and enzyme activities were assayed for Oe and Oa horizons of all stands (but not Ca plots).  An interesting uninterpretable result:  resin-strips show that N-fertilization increases the availability of NH4 and NO3 in soil, but N mineralization assays in the lab show net negative N mineralization rates (high time-zero extractable N, but low extractable N after incubations) (Fisk lab).

Litter was collected in 11 stands (excepting C3 and C5, which don’t have baskets).  They were collected four times during the fall (this means that there are 880 bags of litter in my office in Syracuse at the moment (I’m in Japan)) and Craig will combine them by basket.  We are 
 discussing how to get them all weighed and ground. This was a huge effort, thanks, everyone!

Plans for 2013

This is going to be an easy year!  (Do we say that every year?) Fertilizing in May and July. Melany and Joel will talk about ingrowth cores.  There isn’t a current student committed to this project.  It’s better to install them in fall and have them a year later.  We could help with this if they go in during the summer (Melany will be in NH in June for the LTER review). It might be a week’s work, maybe Rick or Haiyan could. Sapflow work will continue, Lily Zahor is the new student as PSU on this project. Soil respiration and minirhizotron measurements will continue. Shooting leaves in August, if we see a treatment effect from leaves collected by UNH crew. 

We have a google doc where we collect ideas for summer internship projects.

I'll be back in your time zone in February, we'll 
 have some Skype calls then to make plans for the field season.

Happy New Year,

x Ruth 

Update on Foliar Sampling

(Craig and Ruth)

Adan will be shooting next week, probably July 24-25, for all the sapflow trees. We will add the Ca plots at C1, C6, and JB (this is all the Ca plots). For controls, we will select three trees of each species at least 10 m outside the buffer of the Ca plots, rather than shooting in the control plots, which are not very close in some cases.  The trees will be tagged and locations recorded.  Craig will train Tony to digest and run samples on the ICP in the fall. Craig is thinking about how to get images to analyze later for stomatal density.  We need a microscope and a setup for a digital camera. Franklin knows how to do this.  Unfortunately, Franklin was in Syracuse during our asbestos lockout and we didn’t know to get out the microscope.  Maybe Michelle Pruyn or someone else at Plymouth has the setup. Mark asked about taking gas exchange on the leaves; Adan says Heidi will be doing that.  If possible, we would coordinate using their equipment, sharing crew members to learn it from them.

Shoestring Foliar Sampling this Summer
Craig, Ruth, Mariann, and Tim talked on phone and Skype

Heidi Abjornsen will be shooting leaves from all the sap flow trees this year.  We will plan for the full MELNHE sampling next year, seems safer (it takes us forever to process all the samples; we don’t want to do it both 
 years). We want to shoot the Ca plots this year, because we gave them as much Ca as in W1, and that showed a response the first year. 

Mariann:  You get a different answer the first year, for determine growth trees, like vector analysis. Craig is planning to add Al to our suite of ICP elements.  Deb Driscoll said we could do it.
Ruth:  We used to do it for soils.  Estimate your expected 
concentrations, they will be low.

Heidi said: We plan to collect leaves from C2 (C, N, P, P+N) and C8 (C, N, P, P+N, Ca) at BEF and from the Mature Forest (C, N, P, P+N, Ca) at HBEF. Leaves from 3 individuals of 3 dominant species from each stand will be sampled, as follows:

C8: American beech, sugar maple, yellow birch
C2: pin cherry, American beech, white birch
HBEF:   American beech, sugar maple, yellow birch

We plan to analyze the foliar samples for N and stable isotopes; we would like to do Ca and P but need to identify a lab that can do these analyses.  We will also be conducting moisture potential and leaf gas exchange measurements on the leaf samples immediately following collection.

Tim says (on timing of shooting): Some considerations: in the Ms you’ll have to say “fresh foliage was collected in late July or early August”; the actual data issue – I expect that the variation associated with canopy position and annual variation will be greater than that from the seasonal variation; however, there’s always the chance that you’ll only magnify the former variation, so…  But on balance, I guess I’d say the opportunity provided by someone shooting for us counterbalances these considerations. Who would do it otherwise and what other activities would we have to forego to get it done?

Timing?  Craig will be gone by August, but the crew can do this without him.  He and Adam both brought guns.  Good crew! We hope that Tony will learn to process tissue samples this fall (he’ll be on research funding; everyone else has a TA).  We’ll collect tissue samples at Huntington in August, so there will be a few digestion runs.

Plans for BBD measurements
Adam, Tony, Jon, Matt, Mariann, Ruth, and Christy talked on the phone

Methods for the Chronosequence stand (sent by Adam)
Yes, we agreed to score only the bottom 2 m of the tree.
We might not be back to these stands in a long time, so we probably don't want to distinguish recent from old damage, just fungal from insect. Jon asked whether we want to score raised and sunken lesions on the tree. This has not been addressed in the literature, we don't know why trees vary in the distribution. 
Adam:  The trees aren't tagged, and we won't be back for a long time, so this might not be the best place to study this.
Number of trees:  we considered reducing the number of trees, but it might take more time to. We won't include the <10 cm trees, it would be a pain to go back and set 
 up the small plots, and maybe we don't need to know about them.
Jon:  Small trees can have beech scale, but not so many lesions. Take pictures to document the rating system.  See Christy's example. Jon had suggested taking information on crown condition, so we can tell whether the tree is healthy or declining.
Mariann:  Make sure you can see to the top of the crown.
Matt:  Have someone kick the tree to identify the crown. Seems like it could be useful for relating BBD to stand structure and succession.
3 scores per tree:  scale, lesions, and crown condition

Methods for the MELNHE stands (sent by Tony)
Christy’s data from last year record the cumulative damage 4 images per tree, at 1 m height. More trees, fewer images per tree (3 trees per plot is not enough) 9 or 10 trees might be enough (and still fewer than what Tony proposed). Sometimes there won’t be 10 trees in a plot; then do all of them paint the photo points on the trees (and take them in the cardinal directions). Paint a master corner; the box will get wider as the tree grows. For 4 images per tree, Jon takes only trees > 15 cm dbh. Tony, check how many trees you have of this size in the inventory.
Mariann: You don’t want too few images per tree, you want an average of a few of them.  It would be better to make a smaller frame size.
Matt: The average number of >10 cm beech trees is 16 (he’s good with pivot tables).
Jon:  The ones >35 cm are likely resistant.  Consider excluding them. Which stands?  The ones you have to go to anyway for litter baskets? Drop C3 and C5. How long will it take to take pictures on 40 trees in a stand?  Jon says 4 minutes per tree. How to select the trees for sampling?  Start with the ones closest to the litter baskets, make a list in advance with the number, diameter, and subplot (with a fbackup list). Stratify by tree size?  If we pick the ones closest to the baskets, they 
 won’t be biased.
Mariann:  We could use Christy’s data to choose trees by score. We’re meauring the majority of the trees, so systematic or random should be fine.
Height:  Tags are at 1.55, we could use the 20 cm dowell and take the pictures at 1.35.  Paint the corners at 1.35 and 1.25.  On small trees, 10 cm tall and 5 cm wide.
Shinjini can help Tony understand the tree inventory files.  Develop a priority system, starting with 2 in each corner subplot and the center (where the baskets are).
If two stems are joined at the base, pick only one of them. Omit the qualitative scoring. Add crown condition.
Prioritze stands (estimate how long it will take per stand).  Not those with few beech trees.  Look at beech trees in all four plots. Consider stand age.  The youngest stands would require a different procedure, since they aren’t tagged yet.  

Update: Tony revised a proposal, Matt provided feedback. Let us know if you're not on that distribution list and want to be.

Live Shoestring Meeting  at Hubbard Brook in the dining room, as usual.

Attending: Ruth, Elizabeth, Melany, Shinjini, Rick, Mariann, Tara, Franklin, Craig, Matt, Adam, Mark, Daisy, Tony, Becca.

Herb sampling

There was a pre-treatment herb sampling conducted on the transects, which can't be resampled due to rampling.  We could use the 1 x 1 m germinant plots, which are marked off with caution tape.  We should do this as soon as possible, because we don't have pre-treatment observations in these sites.  Too bad we didn't get them while we were counting germinants!  It should be done in June or July, next year if not this year.  We were planning to go back for germinant survival in August, so we'll get them then.  August is good enough!

Germinants

Shinjini will collect germinants (outside the plots) for root-shoot ratio and mycorrhizal status; they can be saved for tissue chemistry.  Elizabeth and Franklin will review her proposal.

Craig suggests marking the germinants so we can continue to monitor survival after this year; he's done this with bird bands.  Elizabeth used colored straws (different colors each year).  If we tag them when they're one year old, we can save most of the tagging effort.  After one year, we won't be able to distinguish this year's cohort from previous years.

Mariann pointed out that vector analysis could be conducted on seedlings, if we analyze for chemistry.  The method was developed for seedlings.

Pretreatment soil results

Christy's lab has completed the C and N analysis and this data will be available soon.  The missing piece is that part of the 30-50 cm depth increment is in freezers in Syracuse.  These are not as exciting as we thought they would be, since we found we can't recover DNA from the mycorrhizae.

We still need the sample masses from the shallow soil pits; Matt will contact Corrie.

Soil Incubation

Melany's team did it in 2008 and 2009.  Ben Dair and Carrie Rose worked on this in 2010 (in C7, C8, and C9).  Those data might be useful; Kikang will ask Carrie Rose about the data.  Tara might be the only person who remembers what the problem was with them.

This year (starting Monday), soils will be incubated for N mineralization by Russell and Shinjini.  Kikang is interested in C mineralization, because it relates to her soil respiration values (heterotrophs, no roots).  This means putting base traps in the jars.  Russell and Shinjini will be doing 104 samples (13 sites, 4 plots, 2 horizons).  We discussed Kikang's sampling design, but in the end decided that she should share the samples with the N minz study.

She will need a 5 or 10 ml pipette and tips.  Kikang will communicate with Heather.  She will also need glass scint vials with the plastic cone gaps.

Leaf sampling

Heidi is planning to shoot trees in C8, just the trees that she is measuring sap flow on.

We don't have leaves from C7, that's been a low-priority site.  It would be nice to add it, since C8 and C9 are so different.  Melany would like to have samples from all the sites, at least from the controls.  Austin is interested in these data.

Craig suggests we sample in the Ca plots now, this might be the year we get a response.

Let's have a phone call with Heidi's team.

Tree growth

Shinjini and Matt will spend a day in C3 and measure trees.  It's the stand we're most likely to see a response in, it has the most tagged trees and is probably growing fast.  We won't be surprised if they don't find anything. But if they do, it will help our grant proposals. 

Revised BBD plan

We realized that the earlier BBD inventory was not very repeatable nor very meaningful.  So we will abandon the attempt to repeat the 2005 measures.

In the chronosequence stands, we will use a more correct visual rating, only for trees >10 cm, for scale, lesions, and cankers.  It would be hard to set up the small plots again in the stands we've already been to.  The completed stands are all at Bartlett, so it's not that bad to go back.

In the MELNHE stands, we will start a monitoring system based on Jon Cale's system of analyzing photographs for scale and lesions.

Tony and Adam will send proposals to Matt and Mariann and Jon, and we'll talk on Monday afternon.

Sapflow

Heidi and Adan have agreed to establish trees to replace the ones in the measurement area of our control plots. Melany thought they were doing that this year.  They should remind us of the plan and schedule a time to select the trees, or else send us maps. 

Decomposition

Rick is interested in decomposition experiments.  Amos put in popsicle sticks last year, which should be retrieved this year.  Craig had promised to follow up with this; Rick could be involved.  They need to come out before they fragment, because they aren't in bags.  Maybe August will be better than October.

Rick and Christy are talking about litter decomposition experiments; they will develop a proposal.

Future collaborations

We will have a more formal process for approving of new activities in our plots.  Matt is making fabulous maps of activities in our plots, which will be very helpful.  For example, it's hard to know now where the soil pits were excavated.  We discussed snow fences, electric fences, and invisible fences and dog collars.  Just kidding!

Chronoseq inventory planning, May 24, 2012  Ruth D Yanai, Elizabeth Hane, Mary Arthur, Craig See, Adam Wild, Matt Vadeboncouer

Notes from call:

Chronosequence inventory methods from 2003, as recalled by Elizabeth (to supplement Marty's notes):

Generally, we started on the S or W end of each transect, going N or E.  Sites with non-parallel transects were maybe done in order (proceeding either clockwise or counterclockwise around the site) starting with L1?  This will have to be checked on each site in the field.

Subplots alternated side (starting on R from starting end of transect at 0 meters).  The common corner of nested subplot (e.g. 2x2 within 5x5) was towards the beginning of the transect.  We will use ropes to delineate 5x5 boundaries.  use meter sticks to roughly bound the 2x2. Disassemblable PVC quadrat with elbows for the 1x1. Separate germinants from other seedlings; this should be easy to do if we get it all done in June!

Tony wants to revisit M3 and M5; it's always fun to get him in the field!  Week of Jun 11 with Ruth?
Matt will be up to get Adam started the week of June 4 and visit the Bartlett and other non-Bartlett sites to determine site condition (missing stakes?) and transect direction as much as possible.

This year, we will try recording approximate transect distance for each 10+cm tree, and whether it is R or L of the transect.  Also record starting coordinates and R vs L for each subplot.  We should be explicit in the notes about which end is 0 meters.

I assume we want to record BBD status of all 2+cm beech this year?

We are not interested in investing in herb inventories.

What else do we have to do to at these sites?  Just boundary painting?

Mary has a DBH fork for saplings - this speeds up the process in the subplot?  Can we get or make some?

Oh, I just thought of another question - are we doing CC2?  I forget whether Marty put in permanent transect stakes there, or just baskets.  He used a somewhat different inventory method, due the the dominance of the 2-10cm size class at the time, but we could probably switch to the chronosequence standard this time.

-- matt

Thanks, that helps.  I'm sure we can figure it out if we talk it through together.  We do know the # and size of subplots per transect, (see first tab of [NOT] attached inventory data file), but not where they were located or how/if they were nested.

Re: call for chronoseq inventory planning I have some recollection of what we did – alternating nested plots on either side of permanent transects.  There are maps with the transect end points and they should have stakes, if they survived the last 9 years.  
 
 Here’s my rough remembrance:  I think we measured trees > 10cm dbh within 5m of the transect on either side, and then did 5 alternating nested plots along the transect, every 5 meters.  1m x 1m for seedlings < 50cm tall, 2m x 2m for things greater than 50cm tall (but less than 2cm dbh) and I’m not sure about the saplings 2-10cm.  If it followed other studies I’ve done, then perhaps those were done 2m on either side of the length of the transect?  Surely somewhere there’s a record of what size the plot was that was sampled, and how big the trees were in those plots....  If you know the size of the plots, I can tell you how to place them.
 
 If you’re just doing the vegetation, you can do a site in less than a day.  We usually combined it with collecting forest floors, as I recall, which is more time consuming.

 
 Best,
 E.

<mar54@wildcats.unh.edu <x-msg://1451/mar54@wildcats.unh.edu> > wrote:
I looked over the chronosequence inventory data from 2003, and think we need a call to figure out what our procedures will be for the 2012 inventory.  We plan to start measuring June 4!  Can we pick a time for a call next week?  My schedule is wide open so far.
  
In particular, I'm not clear from the notes on how the subplots were located.  Are there notes on procedures other than what Marty gave me for the website?

For the large trees, do we want to record approx X,Y coordinates along the transect to help with future inventories?
See notes below from a previous call, and some of my notes made this week while looking at the data sheets and Marty's metadata.

How long will it take?  Depends how well they've weathered the last 8 years; we may not find the stakes.  It takes 3 days of travel time just to visit the 13 sites.  6 are at Bartlett but the rest are scattered and 2 are over the river where the bridge used to be and through the woods.
Matt didn't do inventory on those; Mary or Elizabeth would know how long it will take.
It takes time to determine whether trees are in or out of the transect line.  Matt has the survey sheets, which will help determine whether trees are in or out.  It's more important to be consistent than accurate.
  
We can discuss whether it’s worth tagging trees; probably not.  We’ll be on a nine-year sampling interval! 1994, 2003, so we're due in 2012.  Tim says it's easier to analyze if we keep the interval consistent.
  
With that long an interval, it shouldn't matter whether we wait for this year's growth.  It may be that these were done in June in 2003, before we could dig soil pits.  So we can do them in June, that would be great.
  
What's the purpose of this effort?  We want to maintain our investment!  And we'll let new students use the data and devise the questions.  Elizabeth had some questions and will need to be included in the plans.

Are the >10cm trees recorded in order by species?  Reliably so?  Can we tell quickly what order they go in?  1994 data seem to be fully in order though no transect references.  Worked ok in H1 and H2 when I checked in 2009.

How are subplots located?  Systematically?  Coords recorded anywhere?  They don’t seem to be on the data sheet or mentioned in the metadata.
Datasheet order seems to be reflected in the entered data?
How do we want to record data this time?
Record distance along transect of each tree?  Distance R/L of transect?

Is it worth having old data sheets in the field?  Will this take too long?  Would it be better to try to match them up after the fact?
Our main goal seems to be to be able to decide consistently with previous years whether border trees are in or out of the sample area.  Do we ever want to match individual tree measurements from year to year? In principle this is the same but it might be a lot more work. Tagging isn’t practical if we are only on a 9-year interval!
What order do we measure the sites in?  Try to match order (if not exact timing) of previous inventory?
What are we doing for BBD in these?  What categories of regen do we want to re-do?  Does it matter that we can't revisit the same subplots?  Or can we?
We need a step-by-step how-to guide written up to ensure consistency in the future!

 -- matt

Beech Bark Disease, Shoestring Notes, Elizabeth, Matt, Mariann, Jon, and Ruth talked on Skype.

What we did in 2003:  Elizabeth noticed beech sprouting in one of our stands, after we were already through much of the inventory. In the fall, Matt and Marty scored the nearest beech tree to each litter basket (15 per site). There are 13 sites in the chronosequence study (last year we did resurvey for BBD in the 9 Bartlett sites, Christy 
Tanner was the undergrad who worked on that). Sites:  6 are at Bartlett, formerly studied by Hart.  1 at HB, 2 up by 
 Glenn (over the river and through the woods), 2 on Iron Mtn Rd, 1 at Sawyer River, 1 on the Kankamangus.  
Jon:  In 10 years, infected trees would be dead.  So you might not be able to track changes in individual trees. You could characterize change over time at the stand level.  For that, you would have to use the same method as before or know how your new method compares to the old.
Elizabeth:  We can see the aftermath as a function of stand age.  How do trees recover, how does disease pathology develop over time?  At what age do we see it develop?  Did we even look at the youngest ones? What size are trees in a 30-yr old stand?  8-12 cm.  Pin cherry is 
falling out, beeches are still really small.  
Ruth:  We would want to include the 9 Bartlett stands to give better coverage of stand ages.
Elizabeth:  Are young stands still getting hit now that the disease front has moved on? How well can we replicate the 2003 measurement?  We hope we know which basket is which, and in some sites we may have trouble finding all the transects.  In most cases, the transects are systematic, so we can find the basket locations. What did we score?  All lesions, not fungal presence.  Based on Houston. What Jon is doing:  Trying to figure out the role of tree nutrition and  physiological compounds, and recognizing the two fungi, which might respond differently.  100 study trees in the ADKs, 100 in CNY (Heiberg). Also looking for secondary pathogens, which might be important in the development of the disease.  Improvements to the conceptual model of the role of the nectria and the scale.  He sampled bark from trees that 
 didn’t yet have lesions, then going back to find the ones that get scale and develop lesions, and test their physiology. Quantitative approach to scale density and lesion density:  10 x 10 cm frame, 12 locations on the tree, take digital images.  (base, 1 m, 2 m)(N, S, E W) = 12 locations.  Put a ruler against the tree and take a picture. On the image, you circle the lesions and the software tells you the total area.  For scale, you subsample the image (3 x 1x1 cm images), looking for white wax against a black background (you verify them to exclude other white things).  Again, average for the tree.  It’s time consuming to process the images.  It’s not that time-consuming in the field, 5-10 minutes/tree.  15 per stand might be a reasonable number.  We would tag them!  Trees should be 15 cm in diameter, or the images overlap.  You can draw the sampling frame on the trees.
How these compare to Dave Houston’s index: Jon will test that this summer. Tony could join Jon for the first week in July.  This could be tricky for sequencing visits to the 13 sites, most of which will have been measured in June.

What will we see, depending on the season of sampling? There will be plenty of scale, until August or September. Jon, type in the color of the whatever you said. You can distinguish this year’s from last year’s infection area.

The advantage of Jon’s method is in the fertilization plots. For the chronosequence, the simple method is enough.

Jon could come out to New Hampshire this year, and get the preliminary observations to be able to see change over time.  
Ruth: It’s never too early to talk about intellectual property rights. Do you want to take the lead on publishing from a study in our sites? At the other extreme, you could advise us on methods and one of our new students could take this on as a thesis project.  Or it could be a shared effort with shared authorship. Jon said he’s happy to help and we’ll see whether someone from our team takes the lead on a publication from it.  Next summer he might have more time than this summer, but he’ll also have a lot of lab work to do. Open for anything, time permitting.

Elizabeth:  Natalie Coe at Green Mountain College was looking at the role of N concentration, of bark in VT.  This could be a genetic basis for susceptibility. The N&P additions in the Bartlett stands will be interesting in the 
 future.  How far in the future?  It’s not a big N addition, it might take 2-5 years to start seeing it in the foliage, and that’s when we should expect to see it in the bark as well.

Jon expects to graduate in Dec 2013.  Perfect for handing off to another student, like Dong Li (Tony), a new PhD student.  Tony could spend the first week of July in Syracuse with Jon learning his techniques, if Jon 
 doesn’t come to New Hampshire. Mariann will send her proposal (plenty of background literature), and Jon will send the J-scale technique. (let us know if you want these, I think the people involved have them  now)

x Ruth

Sap Flow

Heidi, Mark, and Ruth talked on Skype.

Heidi wants to focus at Bartlett and drop Hubbard Brook (HB).  They didn’t see a site effect; the age effect seems potentially more interesting. Mark has moisture probes in the younger stands (C1 and C6) but not sap flow monitors. Heidi will want to shoot leaves and measure pre-dawn water potential, at both HB and Bartlett.
The stands at Bartlett with the Ca treatments are C1, C6, and C8.

Granier method being used by Michele et al. on the mature Ca plots, but power issues limited data acquisition last year. Heidi, Virginia, and Adan are using a heat-pulse method.

Student recruitment for the sapflow: there is an opportunity for a student to support sapflow research at BEF. Duties would entail maintaining power supplies, downloading data, and making sure that instruments are functioning correctly. A possibility of also doing root conductivity on plots at HBEF, BEF, and Jeffers Brook. Further, the student could be engaged in data analysis and interpretation. The student would be working with teams from UNH and Plymouth State. Maybe 2 students would be ideal, considering transportation.  They could each take responsibility for one of the methods, maintaining equipment and hauling batteries around.
They might see an effect by the time of the Cooperators Meeting!  The effect of treatment

The UNH and Plymouth State teams both measured sapflow at the C8 control using different methods. The data need to be compared to understand any biases or systematic differences between methods. Mark will have the data in the next week and could be ready to compare with Heidi’s data in the next few weeks.  Or we could let the new students do it.

Heidi’s MS student’s name who will be conducting the sapflow work this summer is Adan Hernandez.

Rare Earth Elements

Matt's proposal:  We should be able to see accelerated weathering of apatite by mycorrhizal fungi, by looking at rare earth elements and Pb isotopes in the fruiting bodies.  Cool!  It's hard to predict when they'll fruit and what species will be abundant; Matt will collect what he can and then work out the experimental design.
In the proposal, we said we would put in ingrowth bags and analyze roots and fungi in the bags.

Matt tried it in roots and didn't see much; though ingrowth roots might be better.  He did it as a term paper project in isotope geochemistry a few years ago.  He used roots from our soil pits.  The problem is that you can't clean the soil off the root tips, and we're looking for uptake from the soil.  
Joel: cleaning the roots is an art.  You can look at them under the SEM to see when they are clean enough.  You can also look at other elements, Si and Al would suggest soil contamination.
The sporocarps are nice because they are completely free of soil.
Hobbie and Julie Bryce tried a pilot study with mushrooms, there was an AGU poster for it.
Joel has wondered how far the REEs would move.  Matt says they are supposed to be more mobile in fungal tissue than plant tissue.
Compare to some mineral soil extraction, because sites (plots) will differ in composition.  But differences in the labile pool will also be pushed toward the apatite end member depending on the weathering rate.
Matt:  So I should look first for sites where the end members differ in composition.
Joel: The Pb is in Fe oxide coatings, and we don’t know what extraction corresponds to what plants can see.  We use acid extractions.
Leaves are not good for plant Pb, there is too much in the atmosphere.  Would wood be good?  Coarse roots?
We’re hoping that the Pb in apatite will be distinct from atmospheric Pb.
Joel:  You can run Pb on the ICP-MS, but you probably want to run them through columns first.
See Joel’s papers with Erel.   

Ruth: The amount of new weathering is always small compared to what’s cycling around.  
Joel:  That’s why we wanted to look at roots in contact with the minerals.  “There’s no chance in hell that you’d see an apatite signal, looking at the whole fruiting body.  But I could be wrong.”
Melany:  How localized is the source of nutrients to a fruiting body?
Matt:  That differs by species.  So we can learn something even if the signal
Joel:  You might be able to see differences in sources by depth, like we did with Ca/Sr.  Eric Miller and Andy Friedland looked at this for Pb.

Timeline
Matt will collect samples this fall and have results by this time next year (it’s a one-year project).  He doesn’t really expect treatment results yet, but we have age and site, too.
He has samples of our fertilizer that he can run for REEs.  We might not be able to use the P treatments if they are full of REEs.
Joel and Melany’s ingrowth cores will go in...when?  Melany found notes saying that they should plan this summer and install this coming fall.

Minirhizotron Maintenance

Kikang, Tim, and Ruth talked to Thom Richards at Bartz

Using it in wet weather is not advised.  Dry the tubes with a rag before you put the camera in them.
Temperature is an issue, you can get condensation on the camera.

Last year, when it was blurry, it was because it got wet, either from condensation or immersion.
You can take the cover off, there are two phillips-head screws on the front where the black pastic cap is.  You can let it dry out.  If it goes too long, if you let it clear itself, it dries on the CCD, leaving residue.  When he opened ours, it was really wet.  There are many lenses in the zoom, it can have condensation without affecting your view.  It’s easy to forget to check the window.  It’s too late by the time it shows on the screen.  Check for fogging after each tube, as well as looking for moisture on the outside of the camera.  If you see fogging, stop, let it cool off, take off the cap and let the temperatures equilibrate.  It happens more with the old cameras, we don’t know how long the water resistance will last. 

The cables are the most delicate thing on the entire camera system.  Astrid Volder had t-shirts made up about the need to be careful with the cables!  Don’t wrap them around your elbow or your hand, you don’t want the cable twisting inside the jacketing.  The SVHS foam core and copper shielding provides the color signal.  This is the first to go (your image will go to black and white).  There’s a way to coil it naturally.  Don’t yank on it, you’ll see the end pulling out by the controller, and people put electrical tape on it.  It’s better to send it in sooner rather than replacing the whole cable.  (Tim says they’ve been through a few cables over the last 20 years.)

Anything else?  Don’t hammer tent pegs with it.  Or drop them, no huge shocks.  The uv cameras are a little more delicate.  The white-light cameras are pretty durable.

Keeping the window and bulbs clean, you can pull them out and clean the sockets with alcohol.  They rarely fail, so it’s easy to forget about them.  Check the wires on the bayonet-style bulbs, those are easy to repair.

Loose screws:  The caps that hold on the front and back, if the screws are loose they can scratch your tubes up.  

Temperature is an issue at low temperatures, the camera is heating up and cooling down.  There’s more potential for dew and puddles in those conditions, too.

360 cameras have been sold to date, some have been replaced or upgraded.  Probably about 250 icaps are out there.  He’s owned it since 2004.

He will send us a handout on taking care of tubes.  

Decomposition

Christy, Matt, Melany, Kikang, and Ruth talked on Skype.

We're more likely to detect an effect on decomposition (or soil respiration) than a change in soil C.

What would be the novel aspect?  The interaction of N and P.  Amos got an interaction, at one of the stands, with his filter-paper decomposition experiment.  It's encouraging that he got anything after just one year.

There is a lot of literature on the N side, not so much with P. Christy put out litter bags in her N by S study, using litter collected in the stands (mixed hardwood). Should we use material that has been sorted by species?  Ours is still frozen, from last year!

Melany: Previous studies used natural N gradients or N additions, but not both.  Sarah Hobbie, leaf N vs environmental N. 

Melany: There are interesting questions about the respiration of old vs. new C and feedbacks with N availability

Ruth:  Tim has labeled litter.

Melany:  We would want to put it out in the fall

Matt:  What effects do we want to look at?  Across sites, normalized by species?  Uniform litter at all the sites? Treated vs. untreated litter?

Christy:  Explanations for inhibition of decomposition of fresh, lignin-rich material: In an N-rich situation, it's not worth going after this stuff.  This could be worth thinking about in the context of our mycorrhizal experiments.

Ruth:  So we would grab the leaves and analyze the fungi in them.

Melany:  Co-limitation of the decomposition activity.

Christy likes the labeled litter, for old vs. new.  Jason Neff at Niwot Ridge did something like this.  C13 and C14 in long-term N fertilization plots. Melany remembered that they used density fractionation. The P interaction would be new.

Matt:  Natural abundance C14 costs $1000 each.  Melany:  So we can leave that part out.  Matt:  It could be another grant proposal.  Adding a C13 label would be more practical. We could follow what comes out in respiration, DOC.

Christy:  My sabbatic host added C13-labeled material in N-addition plots and followed its fate.  It's nice because you don't have to use litterbags, which gives more realistic decomposition rates. Melany will talk to Tim about the C13-labeled leaves, she needs it for the soil freezing study. 

Ruth:  What would make good preliminary data for a future proposal?  This is more than we could do on the Shoestring.

Melany: P accelerated decomposition in lab experiments, the first year but not the second.  P has to be important to microbial metabolism.

Christy has a new student, Bavia Sridhar, starting in the fall who is interested in N effects on soil C storage, coming from a masters with Mark Bradford at Yale.  The money Christy has is for modelers.  But maybe she could be interested in this. 

Ruth:  We'd be happy to have her join the field crew

Christy:  She'll be going to Biogeomon.  Put in an abstract, July 16-19, abstracts are due April 27.  She and students can help with fertilizing if we don't pick that week to do it.

Amos's papers and popsicle sticks.  Measure N and P in the sticks.

Melany:  It matters whether the microbes are growing or just respiring.  Movement of materials through the fungal biomass is what gives stabilized organic matter.

Christy:  that would be cool.  How could we measure it?

Ruth:  Invite the field crew.  We could replicate Amos's experiment.

Craig:  It could have been soil moisture.  Matt: were there observations of horizons?  Craig:  They were put in like the resin strips, at the bottom of the forest floor.

(Tim joined)

Melany: tell her to find a way to measure microbial turnover

Tim:  SBB, isotopes for fungal turnover?  50% enrichment

Melany:  Our litter isn't labeled enough 2% Leave it out there?

Action wouldn't happen until the fall.

Decision:  2011 litter from baskets is going to get oven-dried and weighed. If we want it for experiments, we want 2012. COS April 11? not Christy, nor Tim,

April 9 not Christy otherwise people are available for future calls.

Next week:  Mark Green and Heidi Asbjornsen will talk about future sap flow measurements on Wednesday

Notes: plans for mycorrhizal work in Shoestring sites

Tom, Melany, Tim, and Ruth talked by Skype and phone on 3/23/2012.

Melany and Tom talked in January about ideas for summer (or fall) sampling, for an NSF pre-proposal due January 10.

Somebody should look at root depth distributions and mycorrhizal distributions (without treatments) Identify the roots and the fungi, using molecular techniques.

Part of the point was to get pre-treatment variation.  We're too late for real pre-treatment data, There's a scale of variation due to the neighborhood, since it matters what trees are around them.

We could sample in our plots, even though they have some treatment, it might help interpret post-treatment data.  They likely will not be significantly different by treatment--if they are, good, we'll publish it.  If not, we say so in one sentence in the methods section, which justifies ignoring the treatments thereafter.

design: 13 samples, one per site?  Pick a representative spot, relative to tree species composition.

Following fungal communities by soil horizon, paired with nutrient analysis.

Soil pits, horizons:  Oe, Oa, then look at the photos we archived to decide on lower horizons.

We have doubts about using Franklin ("Now I get it").  He has put in a lot of time on colonization (which is what we said we would do in the Shoestring proposal).

He's been waiting to get into the molecular work. 

Tom, you were going to decide about him after he took a lab class?  He did well in the class.

He's not good in the lab, he's disorganized and not sufficiently careful.

Natalie was going to do the length thing.  Will Franklin finish it?  Neither Ruth nor Tom has been paying enough attention to Franklin's work.  They will meet with him soon (after one more conversation about him).  They will report back to Natalie.  (Tom, what about the project he proposed for a seed grant?  Last time we met, you thought he could do that.  Let's talk about it again.) Tim has an honors student who wants to work on mycorrhizae.  PCR on VA with Theresa, she has two other possible sources of material (with Natalie on spores, pits vs. mounds, or something with orchids).  We hope she decides to use our samples!

Melany has an REU from Miami, who wants to work with fungi.  S/he could help Natalie with the leg work.

Tom will look for someone else to do the EM fungi in Syracuse, maybe an undergraduate student in the fall.

Proposal: depth shift, communities adapted to P acquisition, in the field setting.  Organic vs. inorganic N, ditto for P.

Tom and Melany will talk again about the proposal.

Ruth and Tom will talk about Franklin.

Ruth, Tom, and Franklin will report to Tim on results to date.

Okay, thanks!

x Ruth

Sapflow report

Shoestring (MELNHE) Mailing List:

Please [email Ruth] if you want to be included in reminder emails of all our phone calls.  

I thought it was excessive to email 59 people twice a week, reminding them of phone calls and reporting on phone calls.  But in yesterday's call (sap flow) I realized that Michelle and Jordan had probably never been notified that we had this topic scheduled, and they would have been interested in Virginia's report.  They would have been more knowledgeable about it than those of us who heard it!

With a reduced mailing list, we will try harder to notify the people who should be interested in a particular topic.  So you don't have to sign on to get every notice if you think we'll remember you when it matters.

The sap flow report has been posted on the MELNHE web site, http://www.esf.edu/melnhe/.

Notes from previous calls will be posted on the password-protected portion of the web site.  username: melnhe, password: Shoe22string

Soils

Corrie sent soil samples to Joel, but there are more yet to send. We still need the physical data from the half soil pits in the fourth plots.

Christy's report: power cores

Roots from the 30-50 cm depth increment.  We need to provide rock and dry soil weights.  Franklin has all of the roots that were picked from the cores before d

We hadn't processed the soils for dry mass.  (send along the procedure--do we have to sieve the whole sample or do we use the values that April

The subsamples that went to Ithaca have been dried, sieved, and ground and about 60% have been analyzed for CN (they thought they were closer to being done but they found more), 700 samples total (6 depths, 5 cores per plot (4 in the buffer and 1 in the center), 4 plots per stand, stands:  HBm, HBo, JBm, JBo, C5, C7.  April has 24 powerpoint slides that show where the cores were taken in each plot.  We also want her list of the exact depths sampled.  

They have roots from these samples!  Do they need to be dried and weighed?  Post-treatment we're going to be interested in them.  

Ruth will send root chem paper (better yet, Heather will put it on the web site).  It was submitted to Biogeochemistry last month.

Franklin has samples from C5 and C7 but also C1 and C8.  We are confused about the JB and HB cores for mycorrhizae--Kikang sent them to Melany?

Root cores collected by Tim in 2009 are still being processed.  Neal Smeltzer inventoried these samples last summer, Alexis has updated the list.  The plan is to finish sorting these before summer.  Tim?

Matt:  We should have a chart of what was collected where.

Ruth:  You're hired.

Franklin has some people who can work on this.  A friend of his and Christina, a high-school student.

Decomposition:  15 papers per plot was not enough.

Put some students on it this summer!

Discuss on March 26, 2:30 p.m.

Plans for the Field Season

Summer recruiting: Craig has 20 applicants, some of which will get better offers elsewhere. How many do we want? We have Kikang, Craig (figure 3 days a week), Franklin.  Matt part-time. Aim for 8 undergraduates?  Make offers to 10.  (Try to get ESF students in May who are headed for summer camp afterwards). Alexis for fertilization.  Russell and Shinjini?  Maybe Cindy for a few days.

Fertilization in mid-May, again in second half of July (4 people can do any stand in a day; 12 would be great). Don't forget inventory in the new HB Ca plot and setting up a new control plot. Baskets need to be emptied in the spring and again in August.

Inventory in the Chronosequence stands:  1 per day 3 for inventory, 2-3 for painting (weather dependent). They were painted in 2005, we should be able to see some paint in some stands.  Not on birches.  For M6, don't follow the old boundary paint, it wasn't well placed. Timing doesn't matter too much, since it's been 10 years. Matt will check; he thinks they were all done in June.

Shooting foliage in early August?

In the past, we sampled in the first week of August (Craig will check the dates). Tim says they saw the full treatment effect in the second year in the pin cherry study. Craig has plenty of other interests, The Ca plots are interesting because the stream flow was affected in the first year post treatment, and Juice reported foliar  responses in the first year.  Foliar Ca increases up to abscision, and it's not retranslocated.

Most of the chemistry is stable, We're all comfortable if our post-treatment foliar measurements are scheduled for later. Sap flow in C8, JBo, HBo;  We have litter baskets still in the freezer, let's discuss on 3/19.  (that was a mistake, we had sap flow on 3/19). We don't collect leaves for chemistry until the year we shoot foliage again.

What about litter baskets?  Getting mass is easy  compared to sorting by species. Kikang is thinking about decomposition measurements.

Stand Inventory

Shinjini showed us change in BA by species  PPTX.We discussed the need to distinguish growth, mortality, and ingrowth.  We can calculate growth per tree (BA/tree) only for trees > 10 cm at the first inventory.  We can't distinguish ingrowth from mortality in the 2-10 cm class.  For the >10, we will want to monitor ingrowth and mortality post-treatment.

One value of this exercise is to see if the four plots are well matched.  Shinjini will send us graphs of basal area by species, and maybe stem density?

Soil N&P Availability

Melany sent graphs.  She is waiting on documentation of the methods to post the results. 

From: Matt Vadeboncoeur <mar54@wildcats.unh.edu>

Date: January 26, 2012 4:52:42 PM EST

To: Ruth D Yanai <rdyanai@syr.edu>

Subject: Shoestring tree cores, updated site ages

Reply-To: <matt.vad@unh.edu>

Ruth -

I had time to take a look at some of the tree cores I took this fall at JBM and C3, for which we don't yet have hard ages.

At C3, the consensus among several cores (4 of 6) was 30 clear growing seasons thru Fall 2011.  This puts the harvest about 1980, since there's a bias against getting all rings (I didn't always hit the exact center of the tree, and couldn't core exactly at the base).  Prior to these cores, all we knew was that it was pre-1982, based on an aerial photo that Markio found.

At JBM, I only had 4 usable cores, and they were less readable.  The rings I could count (with low certainty) ranged from 24-26, so I guess the narrow range gives me some confidence.  There's more microtopography at JBM, so I was able to core pretty much right at the base of the trees.  I guess we could call it 1985?

This is progress, but we should discuss whether it's worth doing any more to nail these down.  I guess a few years one way or the other doesn't really make much difference, given all the other differences among the sites?

-- matt

Other news:  Matt got an NSF Dissertation improvement grant, to look at rare-earth elements in fruiting bodies of mycorrhizal fungi.

Craig got a Sussman Fellowship to compare N minz in our sites to those in lawns in nearby residential areas.

Future topics to discuss:  Tree heights, litter mass, foliar chemistry, plans for the field season, rare earth elements, N mineralization.

Plans for the summer: fertilizer addition, tree inventory, respiration, rhizotrons, litter, roots, leaves, CWD, people

Matt, Melany, Ruth, Kikang, and Craig talked on Skype.

Fertilizer addition

Can we manage two additions?  It went a lot faster the second time.  We'll have mostly new people again the first time, and it will be slow again, but the marginal cost of two applications is the time it takes to do the second one.

1 week of 8-10 people.  Two people in old stands, three people in a young stand (or multiple teams doing plots in a stand).  

In old stands 6-10 hours.  Young or mid stands 10-12 hours.

Craig says 7 days to do all 13 stands with 9 people (the second time).

Inventory in the new HB plots

ASAP: survey a control plot by the new Ca plot, stand inventory in May.  Tim will be available.  Matt needs 1-2 people, one long day.  Mark want want to be there or contribute grad students.  Melany will also be there in May.

Inventory in the Federer Chronosequence

How long will it take?  Depends how well they've weathered the last 8 years; we may not find the stakes.  It takes 3 days of travel time just to visit the 13 sites.  6 are at Bartlett but the rest are scattered and 2 are over the river where the bridge used to be and through the woods.

Matt didn't do inventory on those; Mary or Elizabeth would know how long it will take.

It takes time to determine whether trees are in or out of the transect line.  Matt has the survey sheets, which will help determine whether trees are in or out.  It's more important to be consistent than accurate.

We can discuss whether it’s worth tagging trees; probably not.  We’ll be on a nine-year sampling interval!  1994, 2003, so we're due in 2012.  Tim says it's easier to analyze if we keep the interval consistent.

With that long an interval, it shouldn't matter whether we wait for this year's growth.  It may be that these were done in June in 2003, before we could dig soil pits.  So we can do them in June, that would be great.

What's the purpose of this effort?  We want to maintain our investment!  And we'll let new students use the data and devise the questions.  Elizabeth had some questions and will need to be included in the plans.

Respiration, minirhizotrons

Every 3-4 weeks, measure respiration and minirhizotrons.  Kikang needs 1 other person, for 2 weeks of each month, but not the whole day (because the battery has to be recharged), so they can help with other things.

Litter

Craig: Spring litter collection won’t take long, and it will be good for checking on site maintenance (2 people for 3 days, including JB and HB.  Matt has a list of small things that still need to be done for site maintenance.

Note: the spring litter has a disproportionate amount of beech, but we don’t sort it by species.  Should we?  Craig could do a sensitivity analysis and tell us whether this is worthwhile.  We didn’t sort Fall 2011, so we don’t need to sort Spring 2012!

Fall 2011 is at Bartlett, it all needs to be weighed.  We decided not to sort the first year of treatment.  

Summer 2010 is still in freezers!  What did we decide about that?  We were waiting for the new student to decide (that would be Craig).

We have 2008 but not all the plots were set up.  We have 2009 complete (but some bags are missing, Craig discovered), it was sorted in summer 2010.  So we have pretreatment data by species for 1-2 years for all plots.

Fall 2010 needs to be dried and weighed, after 2011 gets off the drying racks.  Removing non-leaf material takes time, but not as much as sorting by species.  It’s a one-person job, one hour a day, and the oven is the rate-limiting step.  There is a nice oven at HB, twice as big as the one at Bartlett.  If nobody is using it, maybe we could take it to Bartlett (the one Melany bought).  We’ll ask Tim who might need it; if we could have it even for a month it would help us.  Think about how to transport it safely.

Root sorting

Some are being sorted at Cornell; Kikang has a master list.  Alexis knows what has been done since Kikang’s inventory in August.  We think Cindy has a set of roots but she may not have started them.  Kikang will try to find out which they are.

Leaf sampling

Craig wants to shoot leaves in the Ca plots and controls.  He will check with Bali as to how much time to budget for this.  What is the best year to shoot all our leaves?  Tim’s results from the pin cherry study should help us predict a response in our young stands.  His application rates were lower.  Craig, make a budget for time and cost.  We might want fresh litter from nets wherever we shoot leaves.  Select a subset of species?

CWD

Measuring fluxes is harder than measuring pools.  Clear plots to see what falls, or mark what’s on the ground?  Maybe a future graduate student should design a monitoring system.  Fine woody debris was measured at one time in the Federer chronosequence.  CWD is very spatially and temporally variable.  Our plots are too small to detect a treatment effect.

In the pin cherry study, some species grew faster and some died quicker with fertilization.  

People

Grad students: Franklin, Haichao, Craig, Kikang (Shinjini, Russell, May and July). Matt can give us about 2 days every 2 weeks. Aim for 4-6 undergrads?  Kikang will invite Koreans. What about RETs?  It’s really nice if we have extra help for fertilization. 12 people, 3 teams of 4.

Future calls

Wednesdays at 4 p.m. on Skype.  Send a message to ruthyanai on Skype if you want to join.

Dec 7: Kikang's respiration results, maybe Melany's soils

Dec 14: Shinjini's tree inventory

we talked about data documentation, cleared up some confusion about responsibilities for specific data sets, and made a procedural ruling that derived data (e.g. nutrient contents of roots) will be in a separate file from the data sets on which they depend (e.g. root biomass, root nutrient concentration) without duplicating the raw data (we will never ever maintain data sets in two places, for fear that they could differ, for example after correcting an error in one of them).

We will have Shoestring calls on the next three Wednesdays at 4 p.m. on Skype.  If you have trouble with Skype, call [Ruth].

Nov 30: First cut at summer plans, the day before the REU supplement proposal is due.  How many person-days will it take to do the various things on our list, how many people will we need, and what would make good student projects?

 Dec 7:  Report from Shinjini on tree inventory?  Ideas for research questions.

Dec 14:  Kikang has respiration results.  Melany is partway through soil nutrient availability.  Kikang sees no treatment effects, but Melany does.

Next semester, we'll have a new schedule.  Let me know about any regular conflicts (teaching) that you want us to avoid.

Topics:  finishing stand inventory, starting wollastonite addition, processing soil samples, fall field plans.  Matt, Shinjini, Ruth, Kikang, Rachel, and Melany talked on Skype

Stand inventory

Shiniji has only two more stands to go for data entry, which she should finish next week.

Matt has been following up with checking problems in the field.  C4 took a long time (at least 5 hours) because of the number of trees that were problematic and the difficulty of getting around in the stand.  Some go quicker, the quickest was 1 hour.  The old stands have fewer trees and are easy to move around in.

Completed and checked:  JB, HB, C4, C6.

Ready to check: C1, C3, C7, C8, C9.

Still to enter:  C2, C5.  

C1 has a lot of trees tagged that are less than 10 cm dbh, because they were used for foliage.

Sometimes a tree gets recorded twice, sometimes trees change species, some were not found and not recorded as dead in a prior year.  Some that were previously dead are reported as alive.  Some trees lost girth.  Matt has been checking all of these things.  Occasionally tags fall out.

In future years, there will be fewer things to check, because we will be confident of the species ID and we will take the prior inventory with us in the field.  Matt reports that there is not a clear winner in terms of identifying trees correctly; it goes both ways.  So it was worth checking!

Rachel will have more time next week, Thursday and Friday, same thing the following week (because she is doing weekly litter collections for Cindy early in the week).  She and Matt will make plans based on the forecast.  They might be able to get through the rest of them in two days, and Shinjini is sure she can finish data entry by then.  Matt can do C8 when he goes there for mushrooms.

Note that we have a new plot at HB, this is our 6th Ca plot.  It is a mature plot but it's out S of W3 (near the W2 weir) rather than in with our plots W of 101.  We should get to this plot first thing next spring before the trees start growing.  We're not sure whether there will be a control in this neighborhood; maybe it's worth setting one up.  The treated plot has been surveyed, not with a hypsometer.  It's less than one day of work to do inventory on the Ca plot; if we want to survey a new plot and do inventory, that will take more time, especially if we have brand new people on it.

Ca Fertilization

Matt helped Mark pilot the wollastonite application.  They had four people, with two of Mark's students; Scott Bailey and Jordan also helped for an hour.  50 lb bags are easy to carry on a frame pack but you have to go slow and be careful.  One person spreads each 50-lb bag in a 10x10 plot, plus 1 more bag for every 4 plots.  So they did one plot in a little more than half a day with 4 people; it was downhill from the parking spot!  They decided against weighing out smaller portions, it's easy to tell where you've spread a ton of white powder.  Matt put up pictures on our web site.  

Deep soil samples for Melany

Melany is not in any rush to get these, it takes them a week to do two samples of the ones they have already.  Russell is planning out how long it will take, they are doing the surface mineral soil and two horizons in the forest floor.  Melany will be driving to IES, HB, and SYR in January, we could plan for it then.  It will be sometime the week of Jan 16, most likely.  

Next field trip

The weather does not look good this weekend, Kikang and Haichao will aim for next weekend (travel Oct 20, work on 21-23).  They need to do soil respiration in 9 stands, minirhizotrons in 7 stands.  This takes 3-4 days, so we will be hoping for 1-2 more days from Rachel and Corrie.  Rachel will be available to finish up on Oct 26-27.  We hope we hear from Corrie that she can contribute a day at Bartlett; Rachel can do HB by herself (respiration, no rhizotrons).  If Corrie can't help, then Kikang and Haichao could do all the minirhizotrons and Rachel could do the respiration.

Litter collection

There needs to be one more trip for collecting litter from baskets.  Kikang thinks that getting another respiration measurement is not important, but it might be worth imaging the minirhizotrons, depending on what they see on this next trip.  

Maps

Matt will have a full set of maps ready to go across all the sites after he goes to C3 and C5 (first time this year).  Thanks, Matt!  There will be a small-scale map for navigation, and a zoomed-in map showing the location of all our measurements.  Craig and Corrie and Shinjini were critical in putting this information together, thanks!

Future calls

Wednesdays at 4 p.m., Nov 9, 30, Dec 7, 14.

Nov 9:  Data documentation!   

Shoestring Conference Call - Friday, September 8, 2011
Kikang, Rachel, and Corrie on Skype

Call topic: September field work - Minirhizotrons, Soil respiration, Pulling out filter paper, Checking for litter baskets that need to be fixed.

Kikang, Amos and Hiachao will arrive at HB on Sept 15th--weather forecast looks clear but cold.
Minirhizotron equipment is stored at HB
They will stay at Hubbard Brook and Bartlett Sept 15-18 and try to get the minirhizotrons filmed, filter paper removed, and soil respiration done at the Jeffers Brook and some of the Bartlett stands on Sept 16, 17, 18

Work to do:

1. Minirhizotrons (takes about 2-3 hrs per stand): C1, C2, C6, C7, C9, and JB mid & old (7 stands)
2. Soil respiration (takes about 2 hrs per stand): C1, C2, C6, C7, C9, HB mid & old, and JB mid & old (9 stands)
3. Fix litterfall baskets (replace broken baskets, about 10 in all 11 stands, so it wouldn't take longer than 0.5 hr stand): all 11 stands except C3 and C5 (We don't have baskets in C3 and C5)
4. Collect filter paper (not sure, 2 hrs per stand?): C1, C2, C8, C9 (4 stands)

Schedule:
On the 15th - Stay at Hubbard Brook.
On the 16th - Rachel (and maybe Corrie) will get trained by Kikang and crew to work with minirhizotron equipment- preferably at JB if we can get access through the road.
On the 17th - Finish some of the stands in Bartlett (C2, C6, C7 are high priority, trenching stands, We need to pull out all filter paper).
On the 18th - Finish some of the stands in Bartlett (If we can finish C2, C6, and C7 on 17th, we can do C1 and C9) and leave to Syr.

When Kikang and crew leaves what is left for Rachel and Corrie to do is:
Soil respiration at the two HB stands
Check for any litter baskets that need to be fixed at HB stands
Finish soil respiration and minirhizotrons and checking baskets at BEF stands
Hopefully this can be done over two days (Sept 19th and 20th). If it will take more days, Rachel will talk with Cindy about her schedule since she usually works with Cindy Weds-Fri.

Corrie will then check the litter baskets in C4 and any other stands that the crew misses in Bartlett.

 Thanks to Corrie and Kikang for the notes.

Update: The Long Pond Road to JB is open!

Future Calls:

Please send me your availability if you want future calls to be scheduled when you don't have conflicts.  Send agenda items, too!  We'll find a new regular weekly time and make a list of topics.

Notes about Wollastonite Application

Addendum:  Please note that there will be a separate Ca and control plot at HBEF that is not associated with the MELNHE plots (RAC approval pending). Both plots are located east of Watershed 3. Anyone interested is welcome to make measurements on these plots.

Meeting notes begin:  We will be applying 837.5 kg per plot on six plots at Bartlett (3 plots), Jeffers Brook (2 plots), and Hubbard Brook (1 plot).

It will likely take multiple days to apply the material. Mark will send the list of possible dates for application - weather pending (we won't be able to apply in the rain).

The Hubbard Brook plot is not one of the existing shoestring plots; it is separate, located east of Watershed 3. We need to make a larger group aware that the HBEF plot exists.

Application of the wollastonite will entail bagging 8.375 kg portions that will be transported to the plot and appied on 10 x 2.5 m lanes. We estimated that it will take anywhere from 15 to 30 min for a round trip delivery of two or three bags to the plot, thus we have to allow a few hours to get all of the wollastonite transported from the closest road to the site.

Mark will set up a test application with a team of four people who will become team leaders. They will finish the first plot and then work out any kinks in the process.

The application process will rely on having a 5 to 10 person crew per plot. Mark has a list of about 12 people from PSU who are willing to help. On any given day, we anticipate having enough people.

Matt (and maybe Corrie) will try to be at the training application to share their experience with the previous fertilizer applications.
 

Notes from Shoestring Skype
Ruth, Matt, Corrie, Craig, and Mark spoke on Skype, with some connection difficulties.

Inventory and wrapping up summer field work

Craig let us know how field work was progressing. The young stands took two days with crews of 3 to inventory. They expect to be done by Thursday Aug 4th with Inventory.  Then the crew will spend Friday as a wrap up and clean up day. Matt will be with the crew that Thursday and Friday. We talked about painting the boundary at Hubbard Brook. Matt had flagged out the boundary, we just need someone to paint it when the crew goes to do the inventory at HB. The best thing would be to do two blazes in the direction of the boundary, with every 10-15 meters or so places 4 blazes around a larger tree if possible.
UPDATE - As of 8/4/11, inventory is complete at all sites.  HB boundary did not get all the way painted because it was raining.  Some stake tags still need to go out; Craig will try to wrap this up on Sunday.

We will collect basket litter this and next week, then again at the end of the fall (around Nov 1). Jeffers Brook is so wet and cold the leaves freeze in there fairly early.
UPDATE - no litter baskets have been collected so far.  Amos and Christy will do Bartlett next week, as they make Kikang's rounds while she's at ESA.  Craig will collect from JB and HB on Sunday-Monday.

Sample Organization

When people travel to Syracuse at the end of the season we need to coordinate with Bill on the Wednesday of that week to let him know what samples are coming and where we should bring them, so he can tell us if there is space, or make some space. Russell is working on the sample inventory file. Corrie posted it online as a google doc and added it to the MELNHE workspace.

Calcium Fertilization

We talked with Mark Green about Ca fertilization this fall. There is going to be a larger amount of fertilizer. Mark has 4-5 students to help and we can supply some people. At the time of the meeting we were waiting for permissions to store the wollastonite, but now we have the permission to store it there. We will house it outside next to the garage under a tarp. Mark hopes to receive it in Bartlett mid September and it will be applied mid-October. We'll want to collect litter at the same time?  Will the wollastonite affect measured litter mass?  We will want protection from the wollastonite, like long clothing and respirators. It will be a lot of mass to carry into the woods, and not all the Ca plots are close to the road!  We may want some "runners" who hike in a bunch of the fertilizer for the application crews. Suggestions for good ways to carry a lot of weight? 

Corrie has taken over writing the fertilization protocol from Kelly and will send it to him when it is finished.  Mark will write up a proposed Ca fertilization protocol based on this, and circulate it for comments soon.  We will have one pallet extra?  Mark will take responsibility for finding a home for it.

Matt and Corrie talked about their schedules. Matt will be there Aug 4-5 and Corrie the week after. Matt or Corrie will do a walk-through with Chris through the white house and lab so to make sure she knows we've left it clean.

Shoestring Notes 7/14/11: root processing.  Ruth, Corrie, Craig talked on Skype; Tim and Kikang joined in person!

Summary:  This message includes the notes from that date and several documents related to root processing that have been developed since then:  the Protocol for Root Subsampling, a file listing roots and results, and a procedure for testing the effect of over-zealous picking by the current crew (they spent a lot of time on each sample, relative to previous pickers).  The idea of the root subsampling is that it would take much less time to pick if we don't need the answer for each of 10 samples per plot.  The file shows that there are still a lot of roots left to pick!

I.  Notes

Ruth consulted with statistician Steve Stehman (on a jog) who pointed out that we don't lose anything by compositing if our experimental unit is the stand, we just need the mean for each treatment plot.  Obviously, if we want the significance of plots differences within a stand, we need replication.  Ruth asked whether 10 individual samples gives the same answer, for comparing plots, as 2 composited samples (lower n but also lower variance, central limit theorem); it shouldn't make any difference except for the error we introduce in the subsampling procedure.  Neal and Kikang can test this, numerically.  

Steve asked whether we care about variance within a plot; we lose this information when we composite.  Do we have a hypothesis about the distribution of root biomass being more variable or less variable after we add nutrients?  Tim said we don't.

Monday the crew will composite C3 into two groups of 0-10, and two groups of 10-30 (each group containing a core from each rhizotron in the plot).  The composites will be thoroughly homogenized, weighed, then subsampled.  The subsample will be weighed, and its fraction of the whole composite will be used to determine the weight of all the roots in the composite once the subsampled roots have been picked. 

After trying this method during the day Monday, Neal and Craig will talk with Ruth at 3:00PM.

Kikang and Neal will work out a way to mathematically combine cores which have already been picked and weighed into their composited plots.  This could be further discussed with Ruth Monday as well?

We need to find out if Melany considers C5 a “priority plot” for roots, as this is where she is doing her ingrowth cores.

II.  Protocol for Root Subsampling (Neal and Craig, updated 7/20/11)

Remove all bags from freezer for the plot to be sampled, check against the list of already completed cores from that plot (to ensure all bags to be pooled are present).

Separate the bags into four groups: 0-10 #1, 0-10 #2, 10-30 #1, 10-30 #2.

For each group to be composited:

Once thawed, combine all bags together. 

Homogenize the composited soil and roots.  It is very important to achieve a uniform mixture. 

While homogenizing, pick out the larger roots.  For the 0-10cm it may be tough to get most of the roots.  This is fine, but try to get all over 1 mm in diameter.  For the 10-30cm cores this will probably be most of the major root branches.  Wash the roots that were removed, then sort into <1mm and 1-5mm diameter classes. Place into vials labeled with stand, plot, depth, number (1 or 2), diameter class, and the words “before composite”.  

Steps 4-5 take approximately half an hour.

Weigh the composite and record on the datasheet.

Pour the composite into a cone shaped pile, then flatten this out into a cake.

Cut the cake into quarters using a knife.  It is important to cut any roots under the knife, so that they are separated properly into their respective quarters.  

Remove the two quarters opposite each other, then recombine, make another pile, flatten it, and quarter them again with the knife.

Again remove the two opposite quarters, re-pile, flatten, and quarter again with the knife.

Combine the two opposite quarters, and this is the subsample (it should be close to 1/8 of the original)  

Weigh the subsample, and record on datasheet.  Weigh the remaining portion of the composite, and record on datasheet.  (Since some soil and water leave the sample during the quartering process, a more accurate value for the total mass of the composite can be obtained by adding the subsample mass to the mass of the unused portion.  The team is testing the magnitude of this effect; it may not be important.)

Wash the subsample, and sort into <1mm and 1-5mm diameter classes. Place into vials labeled with stand, plot, depth, number (1 or 2), diameter class, and the words “subsample.”

In the end each composited group should have four vials: two diameter classes of roots picked from the composite pre-subsample, and two diameter classes from the subsample.  These vials will be weighed at Hubbard Brook.

So far, only C5 has been composited.  C6 and C9 are being picked for all 10 cores per plot so that we know what the within-plot variation is.  For stands where Melany has soil samples by subplot, we might make 5 composited samples so they can be paired with Melany's results.  Faster picking may also solve our problems, see below.

III.  Data file

Link to the Google Doc file with the list of roots and which have been processed to date:

Fahey_BEF_10_RootBiomass

Thanks, Neal.

IV. Root Picking Protocol (Kikang, updated 7/25/11)

Notes from Kikang, 7/20/11

I have been thought why it takes longer time now.

We don't have individual tap water to rinse roots whenever we need (if we rinse roots while we pick roots, that is helpful to wash soils away).

But, the main thing is we are picking roots too carefully.

Now, 3 - 4 persons are picking roots from the same soil sample.

It takes about 30 - 60 mins per person which means, it takes about 90 - 240 mins per one sample.

After 30 mins, it takes about 10 - 20 secs to find a single tiny root that does not affect a total biomass I think.

I think we can test that pick roots about 30 mins (for example) and the roots after 30 mins, sample them in different bottle, and see the after 30 mins sample detect a total biomass or not.

We cannot get the answer soon since we don't have a scale here, but I can weigh them next week when I go to HB for soil respiration.

If it is different, we may need to consider how we can adjust 2008 root biomass in HB and JB.

Black is the original procedure and the blue notes are comments from Kikang and the plan to test the effect of more lengthy picking than she or previous pickers have used.

1. Take frozen soil samples from the freezer and thaw them until soils get soft enough to pick roots (takes about 1 hour).
2. Prepare a double sieve (2 mm mesh over 0.25 mm mesh).
3. Record the label on zip-bag of the soil sample.
4. Place one soil subsample on the sieve and clean with tap water to remove soil. Break up soil clumps using hands.
5. Using tweezers, pick roots which are large or easy to pick on 2 mm mesh sieve (takes about 10 mins).
6. Dump rinsed roots from the 1 mm mesh sieve on a white paper so that it is easier to see small roots which were hanging on sieve or stuck to rocks. To pick roots efficiently, stop picking roots when you take about 10 secs to find next tiny root. Until this stage, it takes about 30 mins from # 5.
7. Pick all roots bigger than 5 mm length from the 0.25 mm mesh sieve.
8. Roots were separated in two diameter classes:  < 1mm and 1-5 mm. There are two samples from < 1 mm: One is ‘before 30 mins’ and the other is ‘after 30 mins roots. Roots larger than 5 mm are not sampled. Dead roots and herbaceous roots are excluded, distinguished by their color, brittleness, and resiliency.
9. Place roots into pre-weighed vials for < 1 mm ‘before 30 mins’ and 1-5 mm and into coin paper vials for < 1 mm ‘after 30 mins’.
10. Oven dry at 60 C for approx. 2 days, and weigh samples.
11. Check the portion of ‘after 30 mins’ vs ‘before 30 mins’.. Should we add this fraction to the roots that were picked before this summer?  Let’s see how big it is.

A number of samples have been picked by this procedure and will be weighed this week.  Stay tuned!

Live Shoestring Meeting  7/7/11, 1:30 p.m., at Hubbard Brook in the dining room.  Topics: Soil processing, measurements in future years, leaf litter sorting, fertilizer, painting boundaries, subsampling roots.

Introductions:  Name (role in the project):  Ruth (conference calls), Craig (aboveground stuff), Shinjini (stand inventory, Mealny's soils), Rachel (emergency backup), Joel (soil, foliar, geochemistry, root ingrowth, rare earth elements), Cathy (tree ring data, water use efficiency), Virginia (water use efficienty, tree level), Heidi (water use), Kikang (soil respiration, minirhizotrons), Neal (sap flow), Lisa (RET, HS curriculum), Franklin (roots and mycorrhizas), Sarah (RET, MS curriculum), Corrie (coordinator), Matt (long-term memory, management team. Russell and Carrie Rose joined later, many left early.

Soils

Samples from last summer haven't been sent to Joel for analysis because they need to be subsampled.  We think there is a riffle box on the porch at Pleasant View.  We will schedule a conference call to discuss the sample load and the extractions to be done (probably omitting the peroxide leach and the hot nitric).  There will be 48 samples from the soil pits (fourth plot). The trenches have lots of samples that will need to be composited.  Joel will be in Wyoming and not available by phone so we'll keep him in the loop by email.

Timing of Post-Treament Measurements

Stand inventory:  Three years post-treatment, 2014 

Foliar sampling:  August 2012

Litter sampling for resorption: Fall 2012

Roots: ask Tim

Mycorrhizae:  Fall 2012

Post-treatment soils: ask Melany

Christy's deep soils: in a renewal grant some day?

Nutrient uptake capacity of intact roots: 2014

Let's put this on our google site so we can ask people for input and check it when we want to know.

Leaf Litter

2010: We have not committed to sorting the fall 2010 litter by species.  Heidi and Virginia want to know whether our treatments affect leaf area by species, in C8 and HBm.  We will give them our frozen samples from last year and this coming fall (5 baskets per plot, 20 per stand; this would not be a huge job).  We do have data from 2008 and 2009, sorted by species.  But they will want to know what it is in the years they have sap flow measurements.

Decision about 2010: Craig will look at 2008 and 2009 to check for consistency in mass and species composition.  We also have loads of data sorted by species from the chronosequence and Tim has data on the Hubbard Brook web site.

We don't have baskets in C5 or C3, which are our least-measured stands. 

Melany has ingrowth cores in C5.  Why that stand?

Fertilizer treatments

Joel will analyze our fertilizer, for future use as tracers, if we send him some samples.  Take one scoop from each bag of fertilizer.  Send the majority to Syracuse for the archive and send a subsample to Joel.

Next year, are we down to one treatment?  We'll know better after next week what the demands are for doing a heavier treatment.  

Ca addition

The wollastonite will be from the same source as at 101, but not pelletized.  The more recent Ca-addition plots at HB have not been pelletized.  The grain size before pelletizing is 10 or 16 um.  Mark will take care of the application.  

Painting boundaries

A high priority for painting is W101, because there have been proposals to clearcut the watershed (except for our plots).  Matt will make a map and send it to Peter Groffman and ask who else would want to see it.  

We aren't worried about our sites at Bartlett and probably won't be painting them.  We should repaint the chronosequence sites in a future year (not the one in 101, this is fair game for the cut) and get inventory at the same time.  Matt will be on the inventory crew for 101.  We will paint 20 m from our 10-m buffers or 25 m from 5-m buffers, for a total of 30 m from our measurement area.

Root plans

Neal and Craig have been thinking about a subsampling procedure; picking roots is taking too long.  Plans will be circulated for approval by Tim.  (Tim has approved but we should start with the low-priority stands, C3 and C5; getting values by core may be worth the time for the other stands.)

Future Calls

Field planning meetings are at 7:30 Friday mornings, let us know if you have an issue to discuss, or tune in on Skype.

Data documentation, Root subsampling, Scheduling.  Corrie, Matt, Craig, Ruth and Kikang talked on Skype

Reminders:

• Shoestring Meeting at the Hubbard Brook Cooperators Meeting, Thursday July 7th at 1:30pm in the lunch room.
• Students practice talks:  Tuesday, July 5, 4-5:30 p.m. and 7:30-9 p.m., in the lunch room at the USFS building.  Mentors, expect to see drafts of Powerpoint presentations circulating before then. Join us if you can, to give feedback.

Data Documentation

Everyone should learn best practices for documenting data AND we need the data documented.  We will have a workshop on Friday morning, July 8, at Bartlett, to make progress on both these goals.  Carrie Rose can help, she has experience.  Kikang, Franklin, and Lin, do, too, and they can carry on after Ruth and Carrie Rose are gone to help make sure our protocols are followed.  Kikang and Amos may still be at HB, but if not, Kikang will prepare a presentation on our systems for generation and review of documentation.

List of data sets and people in charge of documenting them:

Stand inventory: Shinjini and Matt

New tree heights: Lin

Old tree heights (Farrah): Lin

Beech Bark (old and new): Christy

Sleepers River Inventory: Kelly and Josh

Decomposition: Amos (not much data yet)

Roots: Neal, Kikang has offered to help

Sap Flow: Neal

Leaves and litter: Craig

Soil Samples trenches and pits: Corrie & Russell

Soil respiration: Kikang

Fertilization protocol: Kelly

Sarah, Lisa?

Snails and Salamanders project

Corrie will be in touch with Colin to see what the sampling plan should be.

Roots

Tomorrow, Friday, Neal can update root file and get back to Tim about how many roots have been picked. Kikang will act as a mentor to Neal.  Whoever is picking roots tomorrow will think about the ways to make it more efficient and the best way to subsample. We will see Tim at the meetings, and will talk about the subsampling scheme.  Likely, we will be compositing cores into two or three samples per plot, picking out the big root branches, and subsampling the soil by weight for picking out the fine stuff.  Neal and Kikang will work up a proposal on the new subsampling scheme and present it to Tim next week. The crew tomorrow will sort a root sample in two halves tomorrow to see if they get relatively the same answer.  [A better test might be to composite cores, pick out the big roots, homogenize and subsample the soil, and pick multiple subsamples for fine roots.  Splitting a core will tell us that we have a lot of heterogeneity, which we already know, and doesn't tell us what uncertainty we introduce by mixing and subsampling.]

Blog

Amos and Lin are working on a blog entry on the animals around here. They are making a picture montage with animal pictures proportionate to the population size.

Scheduling around the meetings

We will be weighing out fertilizer at PVF, and will take N back to Bartlett.  Craig is going to ask who wants to get to HB when. 

Practicing talks:  Ruth will ask Lindsay if we can use the computer that will be used on Wednesday, or if not, what version of PowerPoint it has.  There is a keynote address upstairs at 7:30.  Our practice times will be 4-5:30 and 7:30-9, in the lunch room downstairs.  People who sign up for a session should commit to providing feedback to others for that session, not both.  Talks need to be loaded by 7:30 a.m. the next day, hopefully ours will all be on by evening.

There will be a BBQ at Bartlett Thursday evening.  Ruth and Carrie Rose will come to Bartlett after a 3:30 Uncertainty meeting.  Sorry we won't help cook!  We can make bread and buns for Friday's workshop.  Then we will leave for Syracuse from Bartlett or from the COS meeting at Hubbard Brook.  

Plot paths, root picking, projects, blog.  Ruth, Matt and Craig talked on Skype

PLOT PATHS

It was agreed upon that the method for walking in the plots needs to be simple so that people follow it.  As Kikang, Shinjini, and Craig are the three that will likely be walking in the plots the most (aside from everyone going everywhere to fertilize or measure trees) they will meet and discuss a method.  We had previously decided that following plot boundaries made sense, but this still leaves a lot of freedom for choosing equivalent paths.  Matt suggested that we favor walking along the orange flags laid out for fertilization.  Also discussed was clearing away some of the obstacles in the young stands, outside the treatment area, to encourage the use of paths.  Pathways between plots will be marked on the maps to encourage their use and for orientation of people in the field.   Signs will be placed at the plot entry points.

ROOT PICKING

The crew is taking a lot of time on each core; is there something they don't know that would make it quicker?  Our notes say that the time estimate for each core is 2 person-hours; we think the crew averages twice that.  Ruth will ask Cindy if she can come sometime next week to review the picking process (Ruth did but Cindy is busy--Kikang is a fast picker, Ruth asked her next).  Alexis and Suzanne may start picking roots at Cornell, if they can be trained when they come in July.  (Later, Tim suggested that we could composite cores and subsample them. Stay tuned for updates.)

PROJECTS

Ruth asked for an inventory of student projects and mentors.  Proposals have started coming in!

Shinjini-talking with Matt today re. inventory

Kelly- on a delayed schedule, maybe Mariann.

Amos- In good shape.  Craig will help with 2nd draft of proposal this weekend, possibly installing Monday depending on mailing time of materials.

Lin-waiting for data (in the mail).  Shinjini will help her.

Neal- at UNH right now.  Heidi and Virginia.

Christy- beech bark disease, Elizabeth and Matt active on email.  Talking with Matt today.

Russell- check back later (also on delay)

Craig- finishing first draft of proposal

Kikang?  

BLOG

Craig will try to write a post this weekend (it's up!  read it and subscribe, if you haven't already)

Treatment and soil sampling schedule, talks and student projects, boundary paint, paths through the plots, root picking.  Corrie, Matt, Craig, and Ruth talked on Skype.  Kikang later added a few comments, as noted below.

Timing of next treatment and soil sampling

N Fertilizer will be delivered to PVF on July 5th. The crew can weigh out P beforehand and will weigh out N the week of the HB meetings. We will make alternative (bigger) P shakers. The second fertilization will start July 11th, starting at C7, C8, and C9.  Melany's soil collection will happen 2 weeks later, starting Monday July 25, 2011. Shinjini thinks it will take two people two days of work.  (Kikang adds:  I think I can weigh P for collars during HB meeting. I am not sure I need to weigh N, too, because it may take time to count about 20 pellets per collar.

Talks at the HB Cooperators Meeting

Corrie and Craig are collecting project topics from crewmembers to discuss on Skype Meeting Monday at 8am. Shoestring related talks will be grouped and Ruth will send the titles to Suzanne.

Root sorting is very slow.  Today we will count how many cores are left to pick and estimate the time required to get through them.  Corrie will look at calendar and how many people working on roots to see how many we can get done by when.

Do we have a priority for root picking, after C6 and C9? 

Kikang adds:  If there is no priority, it would be better not to pick roots one stand by one stand. If we cannot finish this summer, one person may pick roots the left, then we can reduce the error from person.

Site maintenance

The crew has been doing site maintenance and denoting tree numbers in each subplot so that inventory corrections can be made. They are making maps of each plot and will give them to Matt next week when he is in Bartlett.

The missing numbers from Inventory are in the 400 and 900 series.

Boundaries

We need to meet with people from the W101 project to negotiate a boundary and buffer to figure out what that looks like on the map so that we can paint its boundary. We should inventory the Federer site at W101 and we can paint boundary at the same time.  JB is the only other definite place we should paint the boundary.

Next summer to do: Re-inventory other Federer sites and paint the ones not at Bartlett and at Bartlett.

We need to paint the Federer plots. Matt thinks we should paint the boundary at Jeffers Brook because the oversight of what happens there is not through the research station and we're not actively communicating with them all of the time. The boundary paint we bought should last one year, if we want to paint the Federer plots between this and next year. Ruth has in old notes that we should have a 20 meter buffer around our plots. Robert (Andy) Coulter is our contact for , and who we should contact about painting 20 meter buffer pink boundary paint around our plots at Jeffers Brook. Corrie will email him and copy Ruth. 

Shoestring notes 6/10/11: inventory and site maintenance

Matt, Corrie, and Ruth (eventually) connected on Skype 6/10/11.  Shinjini didn't feel well and couldn't join.

Mirror plot layout and stake labeling - see plot-specific notes below.  In a separate email, Matt will send recommended changes for plots with inconsistencies.  Craig and Corrie will lead small crews to complete this work over the next week or so, to relieve the monotony of root picking.  There are some new blank PVC stakes in the corner of the garage near the soil pit stuff, and some cans of pink, blue, and orange spraypaint in the flammables cabinet.  We need to have at least 32 new pink stakes to go to Jeffers Brook.  May as well buy, cut, and pre-paint these!  When changing stake labels at C2 and C7, bring sandpaper and alcohol wipes (?) to erase the previous markings as well as possible.

We now agree that plots that are only mirrored relative to the standard layout aren't a problem as such.  The real key is making sure that the map accurately reflects what's on the ground, and that the inventory accurately reflects what subplot (based on the adjacent stake labels) each tag is in.  I'll send along some new maps of C7 and C2 that show the way we want the plot layouts to look.  We like the idea of aluminum tags and metal wire on the orange stakes (is copper or zinc wire more galvanically compatible with aluminum?).  Did Amos bring Ruth's cordless drill to Bartlett?  What happened to our licence plate signs, did they get shipped to Syracuse instead of Bartlett?  Now would be a good time to start making them!

Inventory file - Corrie will go through the inventory file and make more explicit notes about handling doubled tags, and look for anything else that may trip up the field crews.  We need to buy new tags for this year; we should buy the series starting with #1001 to avoid doubling tags at the same site.  Corrie will check the original datasheets (and check with Tim) to see if anything got skipped in data entry.

Inventory plan - We will revisit all the 10+ cm dbh tagged trees, and remeasure all the 2-10 cm dbh trees in the 5x5 m subplots.  We'll also 50cm+ (height) shrubs and seedlings in the 2x2 m subplots, but we won't resurvey herbs and germinants in the 1x1m subplots, since these were done last year and identifying herbs and germinants is a different skill from IDing trees.  The degree to which the 5x5 and 2x2 are marked in the plots varies by site; site maintenance crews will check on this.  Part of the inventory crew's job will be to remove any ropes, twine, or zip ties around each tree that are leftover from the litter nets (we should bring clippers or knives).  Where the trees are growing quickly; some of these are already quite tight ... we don't want to inadvertently girdle trees in our measurement areas!

Collars - has Kikang picked the seedlings out of them this year?  This should happen before they get measured?  We also have to make sure that Kikang's plot numbers match those on the map.  There were some plots that had some stake mislabeling, and I know that there was some confusion about plot numbering (especially at HB!).  There was a tree fallen across one of the collars in HBM-2; Matt moved it so it could be fertilized.

Minirhizontron - camera needs repair?  How long does this take?

Baskets - Baskets are probably not arranged in the standard layout they were in 2004-5.  We need to check the current labeling and put it on the map to be able to follow a basket over time.  Craig will take primary responsibility for this.  Plot number is also important here, and needs to be verified.

Roots and Mycorrhizae - Tom didn't have good results doing PCR on pre-treatment roots collected last year and frozen.  The fresh roots from this year did ok.  Why?  Freezing usually reduces the signal but shouldn't make it impossible.  Maybe this is only a post-treatment project?

Fertilizer order date -  What day do they deliver to NH the week of July 4?  We want 17 more bags of NH4NO3.  Corrie will communicate with Heather about ordering it.

Matt Vadeboncoeur wrote:
For the call Friday morning:

We should discuss how to handle the mirror plots; I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they are not a problem as such (since there are so many of them, the idea that we have a "standard" layout where A4 is L of A1 and D1 is R of A1 doesn't seem useful), as long as the stand maps accurately reflect the stake layout, and the stakes don't get mislabeled again.

I was talking to Neal yesterday and it sounds like the paper tags and zip ties that Corrie put at C3 year aren't surviving well ... How about this - we get some blank aluminum tree tags and an engraving tool.  We can wire them with copper wire.  Most of the original stakes have holes drilled in them; we'll have to check what size the holes are and what gauge wire they can accommodate.  Maybe we can bring a cordless drill for the other sites?  Probably overkill to do put these on all the stakes, but if we can permanently designate the orange corners, problems with re-labeling won't re-occur.

We should also discuss the boundary painting - obviously important at Hubbard Brook where they will be cutting adjacent to JBM.  Should we bother painting the other young and mid stands?  How much of a buffer do we want around our fertilization buffers?

In addition to the mirror plots and plots where tags locations in the inventory don't match the tag locations relative to the stakes, I'm working to ID other problems with the inventory file (duplicate entries, repeated tag #s within a site)

I'll also merge the HB/JB and Bartlett inventory files (which are formatted somewhat differently), and add the data I took last summer at C6-5 and C8-5 when they were established.

Plots 1, 2, and 5 are mirrored relative to the standard layout, as shown on the map.
This has probably always been the case, but there are few tags to use to verify!

Pink stakes need repainting; orange and blue stakes need relabeling.
Corrie - please send plot 4 pit location.

C2 has the most problems.

Plots 1 and 4 match the old map and the standard layout.  The inventory of tags in these plots is "mirrored" relative to the map and stakes.
Plot 2 stakes are mirrored (A4/D1 flip relative to the map and the standard layout).  Apparently I didn't record enough tag locations to limit the possibilities to one simple transformation.
Plot 3 stakes are rotated relative to the old map (and the location of A1 in the other plots), but not "mirrored".  However, the tags appear to be mirrored relative to the stakes (plots c and g swapped).

plot 4 location/bearing was slightly wrong on the old map; this is fixed in the new version (attached).

There seem to be tags (e.g. 890, 7984) at C2 that are not in the inventory file.  Did a data sheet not get entered?  I guess we will just have to treat these as if they were tagged this year for the first time.
There is at least one tree (in plot 4) that is labeled with a pink flag and a DBH, rather than a tag - did we run out of tags at one point?)

The pink stake shared by plots 2 and 3 on the E buffer boundary seems to be missing.
Trenches need to be marked on map.
Corrie - please send plot 4 pit location.

Plot 4 is mirrored (A4/D1 flip relative to the standard layout).
I have noticed this before - it has always been this way since 2005.
I have not checked this year, but from what I remember, the tags match the ground layout.
The current map matches the ground layout.
All other plots match the intended layout. 

Stake C6-2 D3 is noted as missing on an earlier map of mine (2008).  not sure if ever got replaced.
Stake C6-2 SE / C6-4SW seems to be missing as of yesterday.
All pink stakes need repainting, most blue & orange stakes need relabeling.
Trenches need to be marked on map.
Basket and collar labeling needs to be checked.
Corrie - please send plot 4 pit location.

Plots 1 & 4 are mirrored (A4/D1 flip relative to the standard layout and the map).
The tags match the stakes, not the map or standard layout, in both plots.

Plots 2 & 3 - stakes and tags match both the map and the standard layout - no changes required.

Some stake labeling and painting may be required.
Basket and collar labeling needs to be checked.
Trenches need to be marked on map.

Plots 1, 2, 3, and 5 (but not 4) are mirrored (A4/D1 flip relative to the standard layout).
I have noticed this before - it has always been this way since 2005.
I have not checked this year, but from what I remember, the tags match the ground layout.
The current map matches the ground layout.
All other plots match the intended layout. 

Basket and collar labeling needs to be checked.
Corrie - please send plot 4 pit location.

C9-3 was located incorrectly on the map; I'm correcting this.

There may be one or more missing stakes in plots 3 and 4, which are both quite rocky.
Pink stakes may need repainting; all stakes should be relabeled.
Corrie - please send plot 4 pit location.