Posts tagged ‘ecosystem’

Feb 17

4 Funding Tips from an Experienced Grant Writer

Dr. Richard Gill developed an interest in ecology as a child while exploring the forests and seashores of Washington State. This attraction to wild places motivated Dr. Gill to study Conservation Biology as an undergraduate at Brigham Young University and to receive a PhD in Ecology from Colorado State University.

Dr. Richard Gill, ecologist at BYU

His PhD research on plant-soil interactions in dryland ecosystems, supervised by Indy Burke, dovetailed well with his postdoctoral research on plant physiological ecology with Rob Jackson at Duke University. Dr. Gill returned home to Washington in his first faculty position at Washington State University. There he pursued research on global change ecology, studying the impacts of changes in atmospheric CO2, temperature, and drought. In 2008 he joined the faculty of Brigham Young University as an associate professor of biology. He teaches Conservation Biology courses and in the general and honors education curriculum.

Dr. Gill has been successful in obtaining funding from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Dept of Energy, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. He also helped guide one of his graduate students in winning research instrumentation from the Grant Harris Fellowship, provided by METER. We interviewed him about his thoughts on successful grant writing. Here’s what he had to say:

Understand the call: I think it’s important to understand what’s being asked of you and write to the call for proposals itself. We all have ideas, and we think everybody should give us money for every idea that we have. That’s part of being a scientist, but understanding the parameters and the purpose of the grant is crucial. This is because the easiest way to eliminate proposals is to cull those that don’t address the call. In this way, proposal readers go from a stack of 200 to a stack of 50, without having to get into the details of the research at all. So my advice is to read the call for proposals, and make sure you actually address what they ask for and stick to the requirements for length and format.
Be true to the vision: There is always some sort of vision tied to the call, so make sure you are true to that vision. For example, let’s say it’s the Grant Harris Fellowship, which provides instrumentation for early career students to do something they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do. Make sure you say, “Here’s what I’m already doing with the funding and instrumentation that we have in our lab. There’s a key component missing, and I can only do it if you support me.” Show a clear need, aligning your research with the purpose of the proposal, and you’ll have a strong case for funding.
Make sure you edit: Many proposals don’t get funded because of poor writing. Your great ideas can’t come forward if the reader is mired down in your verbiage. Don’t send them your first draft. Make sure you have somebody read it for clarity.
Be clear and concise: When scientists are involved in a project, it is common to develop a sort of tunnel vision, a byproduct of having worked on the project for years and being familiar with all the details. When you write a proposal you should remember that the person who is reading is going to be intelligent, but have no idea what you’ve been doing. You should say, “Here’s what I’m going to study, why I’m going to study it, and how I’m going to test it.” Be clear, specific, and declarative.

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 13

1 Comment

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: