Updated Seminar

305 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
305
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “Focusing” slide- dump prior to presentation
  • Introduction- Frog declines, habitat loss/degradation, chytrid, etc.
  • Habitat loss/degradation as factor in species loss
  • Invasive plants as a form of habitat loss/degradation- explain what is habitat degradation, no net loss wetland policies,
  • Invasive plants=damn near ubiquitous
  • Interactions and possible interactions of invasive plants, divide this into separated animation sequence, summarize
  • Interactions and possible interactions of invasive plants, divide this into separated animation sequence, summarize
  • Interactions and possible interactions of invasive plants, divide this into separated animation sequence, summarize
  • Discuss Commelinid ecology
  • Native wetland for comparison
  • I would address one question at a time. Describe the methodology and summarize your results
  • I would address one question at a time. Describe the methodology and summarize your results, break into separate slide, repeat at beginning of sections.
  • Start with 2007, 2008, skip other parts. Start with chemical differences,
  • You may need to talk about your complexes here, before you show your data. Make sure you mention the analyses of variance that you did here.
  • Emphasize the fact that there are differences in water quality. Remember, it is not possible to say that the changes are caused by the plants or if the differences facilitate the invasion by different species of plants. Highlight significant differences- skip 2009-2011.
  • Insert an slide here to point out that there are differences in water quality, and ask if there are differences in larval growth and survival in these ponds. Use this to facilitate your transition to the new aspect of this work. I am not sure what the number mean here. Bring second question here.
  • I would address one question at a time. Describe the methodology and summarize your results, break into separate slide, repeat at beginning of sections.
  • Discuss Rana ecology
  • Repeat changes from water quality slide. Add slide with methods. Add picture of tadpole bar.
  • Transition to next slide
  • Describe growth rate and trends in changing growth rate, also temop.
  • Make sure you can separate the different studies, same info as WQ slide on changes. Add slide prior to this with bulleted summary
  • Interactions and possible interactions of invasive plants
  • Discuss Commelinid ecology
  • I would address one question at a time. Describe the methodology and summarize your results, break into separate slide, repeat at beginning of sections.
  • Do you have pictures of your arenas? Digging some up somewhere… (I take far too many photos)
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences. Add mean bars to graphs in dissertation.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences. Add summary with bullet points.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
  • Is there ready less movement? I when back to your paper, I think we need to examine your data analysis in more detail. For now let’s say they move less. Yes, I do need to go back to those stats. I think my eyes are permanently crossed when I did this presentation the first time. Mention other studies done in dissertation project.
  • Updated Seminar

    1. 1. Invasive plants and Native anurans A tale of two interactions 1
    2. 2. 2
    3. 3. Amphibian declines• ~6000 spp.• ~1/3 threatened• ~160 presumed extinct recent times 3
    4. 4. Why? 4Habitat loss/degradation
    5. 5. Loss vs. Degradation 5
    6. 6. Invasive plants• 4,000+ non-native plants outside cultivation• 79 plants cost US $97B per year• Contribute to nearly half of threatened native spp. 6
    7. 7. Area covered by 8 invasive plants in ONWR 7
    8. 8. But…what do plants have to do with frogs? Physical structure Invasive plants 8
    9. 9. But…what do plants have to do with frogs? Physical structure Invasive plants (Water) Chemistry 9
    10. 10. But…what do plants have to do with frogs? Physical structure Invasive plants (Water) (Invertebrate) Chemistry Community 10
    11. 11. Invasive plantsPhragmites australis Typha angustifolia 11
    12. 12. 12
    13. 13. Three basic questions• Are there differences in water quality among invaded and non-invaded wetlands?• If there are differences, do they affect the growth and survivorship of tadpoles?• Do invasive plants affect the behavior of adult frogs? 13
    14. 14. Three basic questions• Are there differences in water quality among invaded and non-invaded wetlands? 14
    15. 15. Hypothesis 1 methods• Natural wetlands- 2007, 2008, 2011 – Tested weekly over summer – P. australis, T. angustifolia, non-invaded (doubly invaded in 2007) – LabPro datalogger 15
    16. 16. Natural wetland complexes 16
    17. 17. Water quality Typha angustifolia 1 Phragmites australis 0.9 Non-invaded 0.8 Doubly invadedAmmonium (mg/L) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Ammonium 17
    18. 18. Water quality Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 7.5 Non-invaded 7 Doubly invadedDissolved oxygen (mg/L) 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Dissolved Oxygen 18
    19. 19. Water quality Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis Non-invaded 0.7 Doubly invaded 0.6Nitrate (mg/L) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Nitrate 19
    20. 20. Water quality 30 25Temperature (Celsius) 20 15 Typha angustifolia 10 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Weeks Temperature (2008) 20
    21. 21. Highlights• In ammonium, non-invaded wetlands consistently lowest• In dissolved oxygen, T. angustifolia- invaded wetlands consistently highest• In nitrate, non-invaded wetlands consistently lower• Temperature consistently highest in non- invaded, lowest in invaded wetlands 21
    22. 22. Water quality: summary Ammonium Dissolved Nitrate Temp. oxygenT. angustifolia 2 1 1 2P. australis 1 3,2 3 2Non-invaded 3 2,3 3 1Doubly-invaded 1 1 2 22 2007, 2008
    23. 23. 23
    24. 24. Three basic questions• If there are differences, do they affect the growth and survivorship of tadpoles? 24
    25. 25. Lithobates catesbeianusLithobates clamitans 25
    26. 26. Larval growth and survival• Natural wetlands- 2008, 2011 – Tested weekly over summer – P. australis, T. angustifolia, non-invaded – Small enclosures with separate individuals 26
    27. 27. 27
    28. 28. Larval survival 35 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australisIndividuals per enclosure 30 Non-invaded 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 14 14 15 16 18 18 19 21 21 23 24 25 16 17 20 22 23 25 26 Day of Year Survival 28
    29. 29. Larval length: 35 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 30 Non-invaded 25Length (mm) 20 15 10 5 0 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 14 14 15 17 18 18 21 21 23 24 26 16 16 19 20 22 23 25 25 Day of Year Length 29
    30. 30. Growth rate 8 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 7 Non-invaded 6Growth (mm/week) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1140 147 154 161 168 175 182 189 196 203 210 217 224 231 238 245 252 259 266 Weeks Growth rate 30
    31. 31. Relative Growth rate 0.8 0.7 0.6Relative Growth Rate 0.5 0.4 0.3 Typha angustifolia 0.2 Phragmites australis 0.1 Non-invaded 0 -0.1140 154 168 182 196 210 224 238 252 266 Weeks Relative Growth Rate 31
    32. 32. Highlights• Non-invaded consistently highest survival• T. angustifolia consistently middle in length• Non-invaded consistently highest in growth• Non-invaded consistently highest in RGR 32
    33. 33. Summary of results Survival Length Growth RGRT. angustifolia 2 2 2 2P. australis 2 3 3 2Non-invaded 1 1 1 1 33
    34. 34. But…what do plants have to do with frogs? Physical structure Invasive plants Water Invertebrate chemistry community 34
    35. 35. 35
    36. 36. Three basic questions• Do invasive plants affect the behavior of adult frogs? 36
    37. 37. Adult behavior• Adult behavior arenas• Stem density mimicking natural setting• Acclimation 15 minutes• 15 minute trial• Rest• Repeat with all plants 37
    38. 38. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 12.00 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 10.00 NTotal time moving 8.00 6.00 P 4.00 T 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 38
    39. 39. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 10.00 Phragmites australis 9.00 Non-invadedLongest individual movement 8.00 7.00 6.00 N 5.00 4.00 P 3.00 2.00 T 1.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 39
    40. 40. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12 Non-invaded 10Number of movements 8 N 6 P 4 T 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 40
    41. 41. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 8 Phragmites australis 7 Non-invaded 6Number of "hang-ups" 5 4 P 3 T 2 N 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 41
    42. 42. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 12.00 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 10.00 NTotal time moving 8.00 6.00 P 4.00 T 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbieanus Lithobates catesbeianus 42
    43. 43. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 10.00 Phragmites australis 9.00 Non-invadedLongest individual movement 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 N 4.00 P 3.00 2.00 T 1.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates catesbeianus 43
    44. 44. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12 Non-invaded 10Number of movements 8 N 6 P 4 T 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates catesbeianus 44
    45. 45. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 8 Phragmites australis 7 Non-invadedNumber of "hang-ups" 6 5 4 P 3 T 2 N 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates catesbeianus 45
    46. 46. 16.00 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 14.00 Non-invaded 12.00 NTotal distance 10.00 8.00 P 6.00 T 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans 46
    47. 47. 18.00 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 16.00 Non-invaded 14.00 12.00Total distance 10.00 N 8.00 P 6.00 T 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus 47
    48. 48. 14.00 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12.00 Non-invaded 10.00Distance from start 8.00 6.00 T N 4.00 P 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans 48
    49. 49. 14.00 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12.00 Non-invaded 10.00Distance from start 8.00 6.00 T P 4.00 N 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus 49
    50. 50. Highlights• More movements in non-invaded wetlands• More time moving in non-invaded wetlands• More hang-ups in invaded wetlands 50
    51. 51. Summary of results• Water chemistry different in invaded wetlands• Generally higher growth and survival in non-invaded wetlands• Differences in movement in invaded wetlands 51
    52. 52. Future research• Compare other invasive plants• Invertebrate community effects• Comparison with native relatives? 52
    53. 53. Acknowledgements• Advisors- Oscar Rocha, Mark Kershner• Committee- Ferenc de Szalay, Marilyn Norconk, Allison Smith• Funding- Graduate Student Senate, Kent Environmental Council, Ohio Biological Survey, Ohio Native Plant Society, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 53
    54. 54. 54

    ×