The nitty gritty of science between trips

Now that Matt had secured funding for a second research trip, we had a lot of preparation to do. One of the most pressing issues was the need to analyze the results from the first experiment. This work required analysis of thousands of samples. Many hours of work to be done included the tedious processing, grinding and weighing of samples. Samples needed to be submitted for analysis and when the results were received, the data entered. Once the data were entered, we need to use the computer models I had created to calculate the results. Given the fact that I am not the world’s best modeler, the calculations were time consuming and required a good bit of data manipulation. The results of this complex modeling would tell us the flux rates of nitrogen through the ecosystem before the tadpoles were extinct.

We needed to finish this modeling and analysis in order to be able to conduct the second large experiment correctly. A romantic picture of field biologists who spend all their time tramping about exotic locales is not accurate for many of us. The reality is that we spend more hours behind computer screens than we do outdoors. The further along the career of an academic, the more time spent writing and administering. A horrible fate, being a department head or, God forbid, a dean, will suck the life out of a research career and eliminate research trips to the field for serious science.

Understanding how nitrogen moves through ecosystems provides one avenue to understanding the way the stream works to support the life that is found there, and how it influences the rivers and oceans downstream. Many scientists had originally considered streams as gutters that simply transport everything that enters them downstream. The research that I have been involved with disputes that view. The science demonstrates that it does matter what happens in the stream with respect to what moves downstream. This understanding has assumed great importance in the US because nitrogen transported out of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico is causing major environmental problems.

This nitrogen pollution that originates in runoff from cropland moves through the streams and fertilizes the waters of the Gulf. The fertilizer stimulates growth of the microscopic plants that live in the surface waters where there is light. These microscopic algae photosynthesize, grow, and eventually die and sink to deeper, darker waters. When they reach this area, the bacteria that live there decompose the sunken microscopic corpses, and in the process use up the oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Most animals absolutely require abundant dissolved oxygen to survive. Fishes can swim away from the low-oxygen water, but the invertebrates that serve as food to the fishes do not swim so well will die in the low oxygen waters. The pollution is thought to cause substantial economic damage.

Stream ecologists such as myself, Bob Hall and a group of others have determined that what happens in the small streams determines how much of the nitrogen makes it down into the Gulf of Mexico. We, therefore, need to account for how much nitrogen is held back in each stream. This is part of the reason that the methods we were using in Panama were developed.

The second reason is that the way the nitrogen is used in the system alters the ability of different animals to exist in the food webs found in the streams. Thus, nitrogen allows us to characterize properties of the stream relevant to conservation of stream organisms. This conservation has the goal of maintaining the biotic integrity of the stream. Again, the methods developed in general would be useful in the specific case of the Panama streams.

I wrote a computer model to analyze the data. Matt and Bob checked it, and Piet started running it on the data we had. He had lots of questions about the model, and some of them were related to errors he found. After hours of re-programming and discussions with Piet and Matt about how to use the model, Piet was finally able to get some results. A true picture of the importance of the tadpoles in the stream began emerging. Piet’s work with the modeling confirmed that the tadpoles were central to how the ecosystem of Rio Maria functioned. The open question was what would happen once the frogs were gone.

Now Matt had funding and the group’s preparations needed to begin for our next trip to El Valle and Rio Maria. Matt made the arrangements to fly, ordered materials, and Edgardo started working on local arrangements. Matt needed to find some new students to replace the ones who had graduated. The ball was rolling toward the next trip.