Environmental Biophysics

Nov 13

Complex Scientific Questions Yield Better Science in Desert FMP Project

The Desert FMP project originated from a discussion between pretty divergent scientists: Rick Gill, a BYU ecologist, another scientist who works on soil microbes, a plant physiologist, and a mammalogist who researches small mammals.

Tree fire in Rush Valley

In an interview Rick said, “We started talking one day about the transformations that have occurred in the arid West over the past 100 years. One of the things we are really interested in is fire. How do ecosystems recover after fire? What’s the role of water in rangeland recovery? And the unique piece of this is: what’s the role of small mammals in this process? We may never have thought of that question, or the complexity of researching how all of our questions work together in a system, if scientists from different disciplines hadn’t decided to collaborate.”

Rush Valley research site. Five replications with four treatments: burned/unburned and small mammal/no small mammal. What’s interesting for us is that you can see that in the burned plots (the light brown) there are strong differences in the amount of the bright green plant—halogeton—that was present and it is systematically associated with the presence of small mammals. Here is the logic: In the spring, the presence of small mammals suppressed the cheatgrass and to some extent halogeton; in the absence of halogeton, cheatgrass ran wild. The cheatgrass transpired away all of the water and the halogeton that had germinated all died before it could flower.

As the experiment unfolds it is becoming clear that small mammals play a larger role in ecosystem recovery from fire than originally thought. The scientists have used their observations to hypothesize that small mammals eat the seeds and seedlings of two invasive species. This ends up setting the vegetation along a very different trajectory than when small mammals are absent following fire. Rick says, “We have discovered this complex but interesting interaction between water, fire, and small mammals. The first year after the fire, a really nasty range forb moved in called halogeton, which is toxic to livestock. Halogeton also accumulates salts in the upper soil profile that will cause failure in native plant germination. Cheatgrass has also moved in which makes the area more prone to fire as it connects the sagebrush plants with flammable material. But what’s interesting is in treatments where mammals were present, the densities of both halogeton and cheatgrass were much lower than where small mammals were absent.

Plot water potential comparison using matric potential sensors between Mammal (blue) and no mammal (red) over time. With no mammals to control cheatgrass, it depleted soil water availability below no mammal treatment and consequently halogeten was not able to grow.

“The other really important thing is that cheatgrass and halogeton have different growth patterns. Cheatgrass germinates in the Fall. It reaches peak biomass early in the growing season and then dies off leaving a blanket of dead, highly flammable vegetation. Halogeton germinates early in the growing season and remains relatively small until early Autumn when it bolts. These are things that will be really easy to pick up using NDVI sensors, which are sensitive to the amount of green vegetation within the field of view of the sensor. We are also using a system that we’ve designed to manipulate precipitation input. This will enable us to connect water availability to the success of two invasive plants that have negative impacts on rangelands. And with these same treatments we’re going to be able to tease out when in the year and to what extent small mammals are influencing the ecosystem by eating the seeds or the plant and at what stage.”

“Until I saw it in the field, the question of mammals being influential in rangeland fire recovery had never occurred to me. We only discovered that piece of the puzzle because scientists from differing disciplines are working together.”

Below are two virtual tours of the site:

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

LinkedIn Facebook Messenger X Reddit Threads Email Copy

Nov 10

Solving the Problem of Disappearing Science Lab Technicians

One of the hardest issues university researchers face today is the lack of funding for lab technicians. Although it’s frustrating that universities are no longer able to support this type of personnel, can technology close the gap? This is a question we’ve tried to answer in our Desert FMP project in collaboration with BYU.

Source: Simplyhired.com. Job listings for Science Lab Technicians have decreased 38% from March 2013-March 2014

I was talking to my colleague, Rick Gill, several weeks ago, and he had this to say about the disappearance of the previously indispensable lab technician: “We have fewer people in the lab, and the people we have are more expensive. We need to be deliberate in how we use their time. If we can make the entire system more efficient using technology, we’ll use the people we have in a way that is meaningful. In ecology right now, one of the things that we’re beginning to recognize is that the typical process where the lab tech would go out and take ten samples and average them is not what’s interesting. What’s interesting is when it’s been dry for four weeks, and you get a big rain event. This is because the average for four weeks is really low for almost all processes, but the data three days after it rains swamps the previous four weeks. So the average condition means almost nothing in terms of the processes we’re studying for global change. We need technology to take the place of the technician who would be monitoring the weather and trying to guess when the big events will occur.”

To capture these pulses in the Desert FMP project, we’re using a continuous monitoring system that communicates feedback directly to us as the principal investigators. Using advanced analysis techniques, we can painlessly assure that data are being collected properly and important events are never missed. Although we don’t have a technician, the goals of the project are still being met.

What do you think? How have you dealt with the disappearance of the lab tech?

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedIn Facebook Messenger X Reddit Threads Email Copy

Nov 6

Volumetric Water Content: Keeping your Eye on the Goal

Most scientists agree that it’s productive to attend seminars and conferences in order to talk with peers, share ideas, and learn about what other scientists are doing. However, in both academia and industry, we need to be careful that we are not so easily influenced by other scientists’ opinions that we lose sight of the end goals of our own projects. This happened to us recently at Decagon. Here’s the background: our volumetric water content (VWC) sensors actually measure the dielectric permittivity of the soil and use a transfer function to predict VWC from the measured dielectric value. Most of our sensors receive a “dielectric calibration” during the production process where they are calibrated in five dielectric standards to make sure they all measure dielectric permittivity accurately, thus leading to accurate VWC measurements with our standard transfer function.

Volumetric water content (VWC) is determined by measuring the charge storing capacity of the soil using capacitance/frequency domain technology.

We were doing a pretty good job calibrating these sensors in dielectric standards, and our default dielectric-to-VWC transfer function resulted in good VWC accuracy. Then we went to a series of meetings and talked to some of our researcher friends who work on instrumentation. They said, “Look, your water sensors aren’t reading as accurately as they should in dielectric permittivity.” Here’s where the trouble started…

Wanting to make the perfect instrument, we went back and re-evaluated the dielectric calibration standards for these water content sensors and tried to use the book values of dielectric permittivity. This was a bad idea because it fundamentally changed the sensor output. Now, despite the sensors giving a slightly more accurate value for dielectric permittivity, they gave less accurate measurements of VWC. Compounding the problem, we now had a population of sensors that didn’t read the same as earlier sensors of the same type. So when customers started replacing their old sensors they said, “Wait a minute, this sensor reads 4% higher water content than my old water content sensor.” That’s when we realized that we had a real problem.

Our underlying mistake here is that we failed to remember that 99% of the people who buy our VWC sensors don’t even care what dielectric permittivity is. They just want an accurate, repeatable measurement of soil moisture. Essentially, because we were so focused on trying to produce a theoretically perfect sensor for a vocal minority of technically savvy users, we lost sight of the practical matter. Did our sensors produce an accurate water content measurement?

I wonder how often this happens in academia and industry. Scientists are bombarded with input from so many different stakeholders, it’s sometimes difficult to maintain the original focus of their projects. We need to remember to focus on the end goal and filter out things that may distract from that goal.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedIn Facebook Messenger X Reddit Threads Email Copy

Nov 1

Spectral Reflectance and Water Content in the Wasatch Plateau Experiment

We chose to collaborate with Brigham Young University in an experiment on the Wasatch Plateau in 2009 because a scientist friend of ours had been working in that area the previous five years, and he noticed there were big grazing responses. The plants growing in the long-term grazed areas were all drought tolerant, while ungrazed plots had plants that were often found only in wetter areas. The only difference was the fence that kept sheep on one side and not on the other. The big question was: how does water influence plants in this ecosystem that we understand relatively well? The story had always been the influence of grazers, when in fact, maybe the indirect consequence of grazing was mediated by water.

The Wasatch Plateau above Ephraim Canyon, UT, USA.

METER donated some sensors in order to set up an experiment where we changed the amount of water in various plots of land. We had rain exclusion plots, and we had treatments where we collected all incoming rainfall and reapplied it either once a week or every three weeks. This allowed us to say to what extent this system was controlled by water during the growing season. To do this, we took measurements with our prototype NDVI Spectral Reflectance Sensor to measure canopy greenness. We also used our prototype volumetric water content sensors to measure soil moisture (this was a few years ago and the sensors were prototypes at the time). Using these sensors, we found that water is critical in a system people have dismissed as being climate-controlled because it’s at the top of a mountain.

A very early prototype of a NDVI sensor measuring canopy greenness in experimental plots on the Wasatch Plateau.

It turns out the amount and timing of precipitation makes a big difference. We were able to directly connect plant survival, not just to the grazing treatment, but to the actual amount of water that was in the soil. Also, using continuous NDVI data, we were able to look closely at the role of grazing on plant canopies. When we looked at our NDVI data, we were able to see a seasonal signal, not just a single snapshot sample in time. So by having the richer data from the data loggers, we obtained a more nuanced understanding of the impact of land use on these important ecological processes.

One of the mistakes we made was failure to include redundancy in the system. We only had two replicates, so when one of them went down we ended up having just one little case study. However, that mistake gave us new ideas on how to set up a better system using the right sensors for the job, and it generated a new idea on how to get real-time analysis of data. In our new Desert FMP project, we have a much better-replicated system where more is invested in the number of sensors that we’re putting out. Each treatment combination will have five to ten water potential sensors. We are also developing a system where we can analyze data in real-time, so this time we will know when a sensor goes out if a student accidentally kicks it.

For more details on the Wasatch Plateau Experiment, watch for our published paper that we’ll link to when it comes out.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedIn Facebook Messenger X Reddit Threads Email Copy

Dec 11

Burn victim research leads to new method for measuring stomatal conductance

Measuring the stomatal conductance of a leaf should be a pretty straightforward problem. The conductance is just the flux density of water vapor divided by the concentration difference between the leaf and its surroundings. Common approaches to this problem involve either flowing air of known vapor concentration over the leaf and measuring how much water vapor is picked up, or sealing a cup of known capacity to the leaf surface and measuring how quickly the vapor concentration in the cup increases. Both of these, though simple in concept, require quite a bit of expensive equipment to pull off. We wanted a simpler approach. We put a humidity sensor in a small tube, the end of which could be pressed against the leaf. As vapor diffused through the tube the humidity in the tube increased. The conductance of the tube is easily calculated. It is the diffusivity for water vapor divided by the tube length. The leaf conductance could be computed from the tube length, the humidity in the tube and the ambient humidity. That worked, but it turned out that ambient humidity variations introduced too much error, so we later added a second humidity sensor toward the distill end of the tube. Our approach was very simple, and works well, but it wasn’t a new idea.

Cross section of METER’s Leaf Porometer

I read of a similar device in a conference proceedings (I don’t recall the name of the conference) in 1977 when I was on sabbatical at University of Nottingham in England. The device wasn’t for leaves. It was developed by a medical researcher to assess severity of burn injuries, and for use on neonatal infants. The skin of a non-sweating human is pretty impermeable to water. A typical conductance is around 5 mmol m^-2 s^-1. This is about half the value for a leaf with stomates closed, and about two orders of magnitude lower than leaves with open stomates. Burned skin, however, is much more permeable, and the permeability is related to the severity of the burn. A device that could measure the permeability of skin would therefore give information on the severity of the burn. The researcher built an apparatus, similar to our porometer, with two closely spaced humidity sensors in a diffusion tube. As I recall, it was somewhat successful, but I’m not aware of it ever having been commercialized or used much after that. The application for infants is also interesting. Full-term babies have low skin conductances. I haven’t seen measurements, but assume they are similar to adult conductances. The skin of premature infants, though, has a much higher conductance. I don’t know typical conductance values, but do know that, without intervention, the conductance can be so high that evaporative water loss from the baby will reduce body temperature to dangerously low levels, even in an incubator. I don’t know if later work has been done to measure skin conductance, but it is interesting that the first applications of the technology we now use in our porometer was for measuring conductance of the human epidermis, not the epidermis of leaves.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our