Scavenging the fossil record for clues to Earth's climate and life
Adriane, Jen, or another collaborator will post here biweekly to showcase what they did over the past week or so. The goal being to show what exactly goes into being a scientist. It’s not always fun field work or museum trips, often we are rummaging through data or staring into a microscope!
This post is a follow-up to one I wrote previously called ‘Plankton Photo Shoot‘. In that post, I described how I take images of my fossil plankton using a scanning electron microscope, or SEM. But that was really just the first phase of taking images. In this post, I’ll talk a bit about what I do with the SEM images once I have them, and how I clean them up.
After I have SEM images, I save them to a few different folders. When taking images of fossil plankton, we usually take several pictures of the same specimen: one of the spiral side, the umbilical side (think of this as your back and front), and one of the side view of the specimen. After the images are organized into the appropriate folder that corresponds to the side of the plankton I took an image of, I then begin the editing process!
The first thing I do is open the image I want to work with in Adobe Photoshop. Once imported, I then use the ‘Quick Selection’ tool to draw an outline around the fossil. I do this so I can copy and past just the image of the fossil into a new document and cut out the background. One I have the fossil isolated, then the real fun begins!
The first thing I do with an isolated fossil image is to zoom into the image. The reason I do this is because I want to inspect the image to see how well the ‘Quick Selection’ tool worked. Sometimes, if an image does not have a lot of contrast, or the background looks the same color as the fossil, some of the background will be included in the selection. If this happens, I then use the Eraser tool to go around the outside edges of the image. This makes the image more crisp and defined!
This is what the image looks like after using the eraser tool on the edges of the image. You can’t tell too much, if any, of a difference, but it does help give the image a bit more definition! I also delete the white background before I save the image as a .PNG file type (.PNG files don’t have a background, which is great because then I can put the image against any color background I want to later).
And that’s it! I now have a beautiful fossil image that will be used later in a publication! Of course I have to repeat this process for each fossil (which, right now, I have over 200 to edit!). Stay tuned for Part III of Plankton Photo Shoot, where I’ll show you how these images will be displayed in a publication for other scientists!
A good portion of the FOSSIL Project team are in the UF College of Education and I’ve been trying to learn all that I can about studying learning in digital spaces. A recent grad, Dr. Lisa Lundgren, worked to determine who were the members of the myFOSSIL online community. She developed a taxonomic system to describe who was interacting on myFOSSIL. I’ve been a participant within the community since 2014 when it began so I have been really interested in her work. One of the primary goals of the project is to connect professional and amateur paleontologists. I wrote about her defense on my personal blog, which you can find by clicking here.
So, now that Lisa has produced a framework (Paleontological Identity Taxonomy (PIT), read more here) to begin examining and analyzing the community the education team is really diving into it. I was asked to join one of the projects they are working on to analyze a year’s worth of Twitter data. The idea being to explore who major contributors are on Twitter in relation to FOSSIL. Are there certain people that may catalyze interactions? How do these people fit into the taxonomic framework that has been previously established?
This project is using both qualitative and quantitative methods. In my normal work, I primarily use quantitative work to assess various things in my chosen fossil group. Diving into the qualitative work was a bit challenging at first but really interesting once I fully understood what I was doing. We were working to classify users within the FOSSIL Project’s Twitter community. This involved going through each person’s Twitter biography to determine how they fit into the PIT. Such as, in their bio do they identify as a scientist? What type of scientist? Or are they a member of the public? If they are a member of the public do they have an interest in fossils? I haven’t had much exposure to how different scientists study learning or communication so I’m really excited to be part of this project. Lisa will be presenting results at the upcoming 10th International Conference on Social Media & Society Conference in Toronto this summer.
As Time Scavengers continues to grow as a community, we need to make sure we understand how to analyze all of the data we have been collecting and if there are best practices for different types of questions we are asking! I have made valuable connections within the education team that have already shown to be beneficial as Adriane and I are teaming up with Lisa on a manuscript right now!
I’ve done a lot of stuff during my time here at UMass Amherst, probably too much stuff (including building this website with Jen and collaborators, which is definitely something I have no regrets about!). Because of the amount of teaching, outreach, and large research projects I’ve done and continue to do, my PhD, which is funded by my department for 4 years, will take an extra year. However, my funding runs out at the beginning of May 2019.
It’s not uncommon for a PhD degree to run over the 4 year mark; in fact, it’s really quite common. But how to sustain oneself for this extra time is the tricky part. There is money available to graduate students to support us in our final year(s) of our degree through fellowships and grants. These are often very competitive and hard to win, but totally worth applying for. So I decided to apply for a fellowship to fund the remainder of my time here at UMass.
The fellowship that I applied for is through the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, an organization specifically for scientists who work with fossil plankton. The organization has been around for quite a while, and its members include professors, researchers, and students from all over the world. The Foundation is great because they have several grants and awards for students, to fund their research and travel to local, regional, and international meetings.
The Johanna M. Resig Foraminiferal Research Fellowship is named after its namesake, who was a life-long foraminiferal researcher and editor of one of the most prominent journals for foraminiferal research, the aptly-named Journal of Foraminiferal Research. Johanna was born in Los Angeles, California on May 27, 1932. She found her love for geology at the University of Southern California, where she received her Bachelor of Science in 1954 and her Master of Science in 1956. After graduation, Johanna went to work for the Allen Hancock Foundation. There, she studied foraminifera that live off the southern coast of California. In 1962, Johanna was awarded a Fullbright grant, a very prestigious award that gives money to scholars to study abroad for a few years. With this grant, Johanna continued her research at the Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany. While in Germany, she earned her PhD in natural science in 1965. Once she had her doctorate, Dr. Resig began a professorship at the University of Hawai’i as a micropaleontologist in the Institute of Geophysics. She was the first woman recruited in the Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics, and remained the only one for several years. She was a professor at the university for over 40 years, where she published over 50 articles and book chapters on foraminifera. Dr. Resig published mainly on benthic foraminifera (those that live on the seafloor) as well as planktic foraminifera (those that float in the upper water column). She worked with sediments from all over the world, and also used the shells of foraminifera to construct geochemical records of our oceans. During her career, Dr. Resig described and named five new species of foraminifera and even a new Order! Dr. Resig was not only known for her research, but she was also a dedicated mentor and teacher at the University of Hawai’i. While there, she taught hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students in her courses, and mentored about a dozen graduate students. When Dr. Resig passed away on September 19, 2007, her family gave funds to the Cushman Foundation in her name, and thus the Johanna M. Resig Foraminiferal Research Fellowship was established.
Interestingly, my PhD advisor, Mark, worked with Dr. Resig during her career. They sailed together on a large drillship called the Glomar Challenger, which took sediment cores of the seafloor for scientists to study. During an expedition together to the western equatorial Pacific (called ‘Leg 130’), they were both micropaleontologists (scientists who use tiny fossils to interpret the age of the sediments and reconstruct the ancient ocean environments). Mark is a huge fan of country music, and he recalled that he loved to play country music on the ship while the scientists were working. One song he was particularly fond of, ‘All My Exes Live in Texas’ by George Strait, was deemed entirely comical by Johanna! Mark describes Johanna as a dedicated scientists, a wonderful micropaleontologist, and someone that was a joy to be around.
The fellowship named after Dr. Resig will support the remainder of my time as a PhD student at University of Massachusetts Amherst. The money will be used as stipend (which is a fancy academic word for income), but it can also be used for analyses and lab expenses and travel to conferences. One way in which I’ll use the money is to pay an undergraduate student to process sediment samples that I will use in my next research project. This way, I’ll get a jump-start on my next project, and a student will be earning money doing science. They will also learn more about the samples that are collected as part of scientific ocean drilling. It’s totally a win-win situation, and I feel that by using part of the fellowship to mentor and help the next generation of students, I am honoring Dr. Resig’s memory and her commitment to mentoring and advising.
I do a lot of research for my PhD, and some of that research is painstaking and tedious. But some aspects of research are just downright fun! Today I’m going to talk about one of my favorite parts of my research: taking very high-resolution and close-up images of my fossil plankton, foraminifera!
Because the fossils I work with are so small (about the size of a grain of sand), we need a very unique system to take high-quality and close-up images of them. To do this, people who take images of microfossils use scanning electron microscopes, or SEM for short. An SEM uses electrons reflected off the surface of the fossils to create an image. To do this, the interior of the SEM is a vacuum, and the fossils need to be coated with a conductive material. At our university, we use platinum to coat our fossils.
The first thing I do before I can take images of my fossils is to pick out specimens that I want to photograph. These are then placed onto a small, round piece of double-sided sticky tape. The fossils are so tiny, I can fit tens onto one small piece. This sticky piece is then placed onto a glass slide. We call the fossils, tape, and glass a ‘stub’. Once all the fossils are in place, I then put the stub into a coating machine. This machine coats all the fossils with a very thin layer of platinum while in the presence of xenon gas. The entire process is very quick (about 30 minutes at most). Once the specimens are coated, they’re ready for imaging in the SEM!
The SEM itself is a rather large contraption, but incredibly amazing! The entire machine is operated from a computer that sits on a desk beside the SEM, so everything is pretty self-contained and right there. The first thing I do after coating is to mount the stub on the stage within the SEM. This is simple: it involves taping the stub to a metal piece, which in turn fits snugly onto the stage element of the SEM.
Once in place, I then slide the door to the SEM shut and vent the machine. Venting means I push a button on the computer, which tells the machine to begin creating a vacuum inside its chamber. This process takes about ten minutes or so.
After the chamber inside the SEM is under vacuum, I can then begin the process of photographing my fossils! Everything from this point forward is operated using software on a desktop computer that talks to the SEM. Just like a camera, the images have to be focused before taking the actual picture. This can be either very easy, or very tedious. There are several factors to determining how the image looks on the screen: are the levels balanced, is there charging on the fossils that’s causing a disturbance, the distance of the stub fro’m the camera, etc. There are controls on the computer program that allow the user to make changes and adjustments as necessary.
I find that the best way to focus the image is to zoom in very close to the fossil I want to photography. In this case, ‘very close’ means zooming in more than 2,000 times or more, so I’m really getting up close and personal with the fossils! I use a technique where I select a small window of the entire image, and use the tools in the program to tweak and focus the image in that smaller box. This is a faster way to focus, and when I’m happy with the results, I can apply the changes made to the small area to the entire image.
Once the settings are adjusted and correct for my fossils, I can then get through taking images pretty quickly! Each image includes a scale bar to indicate the size of the fossil and the magnification, which is helpful and necessary to include with each fossil picture. For this project, I was very interested in taking close-up images of the surface of my specimens, and also taking a side-view of the shells (quite unfortunately, this means I had to break open some foraminifera shells once placed on the stub and before coating).
Once all the images are taken, I can then download them onto a thumb drive and work with them on my own computer. This involves using other photography programs such as Adobe Photoshop to crop the fossil images and place them onto a black background.
Although the process of taking SEM images of fossils is incredibly fun, it’s also vastly important for research. I will include images of all my fossils in a publication. This way, other researchers will know how I tell one species apart from another, and the different characteristics of each plankton species. Ideally, I’ll have pages and pages of fossil images, called plates, included with my publications!
This post will focus on something that can be a little confusing if you’re not a researching scientist and that is how we publish our research!
So we’re going to start this with assuming that we already have a scientific study that has been written down. A paper generally follows this pattern: an introduction of what your study is about and why it matters, background information to help the reader learn a bit about the broader material that your study fits in with, methods and materials (i.e., how you did your study and what did you use to do it?), the results of your study, the discussion of your results (i.e., what do your results mean?), the conclusions (summary of your results and their meaning along with any future work that might rely on this specific paper), acknowledgments (i.e., thanking people who helped you collect data, supported you during this process with helpful comments, or anyone who helped pay for your research), and references (i.e., the other published papers that you cited in your article that helped explain related information or gave credibility to the types of methods you used, etc.
So, now that we have ourselves an awesome study, let’s get it published! Should be pretty straightforward, right? Well….not exactly. There are a lot of steps to publishing. Some papers can be published relatively quickly (a few months) whereas others can easily take longer!
Step One: Choose a journal
There are a bunch of journals that publish scientific papers. In general, you should choose a journal that requires peer-review (more on this process later). All reputable science journals require your paper to be read by a number of scientists (usually two or three) in your field to make sure your paper will be a good contribution to science. Second, you should choose a journal that publishes papers similar to the one you wrote. What that means is that not all journals publish the same things. Some journals specialize (e.g., The Journal of Paleontology publishes papers that focus on paleontology), whereas other journals, like Nature, will publish all types of science papers that they think their readers will find interesting. In my most recent publication, I chose the Journal of Paleontology. Once a journal is chosen, you have to format your paper to the journal standards using the correct font/font size, reference style, etc. Every journal has its own format and most journals won’t agree to read your paper unless it’s largely formatted correctly.
Step Two. Submit!
This takes place via an online platform and can take a little bit of time (an hour or two, usually). You upload: your text for the paper, any images you have for the paper, tables, data, and explanations of the data. You also upload a cover letter explaining to the editors of the journal why your paper belongs in their journal (e.g., this paper is of similar interest to readers that your other paper, published last year, was). You are often asked to suggest reviewers to read your paper. This is because you, the author, probably know more experts in your field (in my case, echinoderm paleontology and evolution) than the editors do. It really helps them when you can suggest a few reviewers (usually between two and four).
Step Three. Editor’s decision!
The editor will read your cover letter and your paper and decide if it’s a good fit for their journal. If it is a good fit, they will send your paper out to a few reviewers, specialists that can comment on the analyses you used, the validity of your conclusions, and whether it’s significant enough for publication.
Step Four. The reviews!
Peer reviewers have a set amount of time to read and comment on your paper (usually two weeks to a month). Peer reviewers are generally not paid for their work-it’s something called “academic service”. Usually, people who publish papers expect to review one or two papers for each one that they publish. The reviews will have a mixture of positive, neutral, and negative comments. They’re focused on strengthening your paper, so you might see comments on making certain sentences more straightforward, making images higher resolution so features can be seen, or comments that require more work (e.g., a reviewer might think you need to run different analyses to be considered for publication). Overall, comments should be helpful (not cruel) and they should be about the paper NOT the author (e.g., “this paragraph needs restructuring to make the point clearer”, as opposed to “the author didn’t write this paragraph clearly”).
Each peer reviewer will mark your paper as one of the following: “accepted with no revisions”; “accepted with minor revisions”; “accepted with major revisions”; “revise and resubmit”; and “not publishable in this journal”. Major revisions usually means running new analyses or rewriting large portions of text. Just because a paper isn’t accepted doesn’t make it bad, either. It may very well mean that the reviewers felt that it didn’t belong in that particular journal! Usually, the editor will take the decisions of the peer reviewers and make a final decision on whether the paper will be accepted.
My most recent paper was accepted with minor revisions-I had to rephrase some of my conclusions and reviewers had me strengthen some of my arguments by using data from other recently published papers. All in all, peer review is a very important step towards making your paper better!
Step Five. Revising.
Very, very few papers are rated as “accepted without revisions”. Usually, reviewers point out a few things, at least, that could make your paper stronger. For most journals, you have to “respond” to these. Meaning, you take the comment by the reviewer and state that you agree with the change or disagree and provide your reasons why. In my personal papers, this could range from “this sentence isn’t clear-rewrite” and I would respond with “Yes, I see how this could be unclear. I’ve rephrased to XXX”. Or, a reviewer might say, “I disagree with this interpretation based on X. This should be revised to say Y”. I could respond with “I disagree with the reviewer’s interpretation and here’s the evidence to back up my claim”. I could amend the text in my paper to strengthen my argument and provide more evidence for my claim, too.
Step Six. Are we done yet? Well….no. Not yet.
Once you get the reviews and make all of the edits, you have to go back to step two: submit! Once you do this, the editor will determine if the changes you have made are sufficient or if it needs to go through a secondary round of peer review (in which case, please return to step four!) Once the editor has decided your paper is acceptable for publication, the editor will make sure your paper conforms to all journal standards and there are no glaring issues (e.g., you forgot to label your scale bar or forgot to put a reference for an in-text citation).
Step Seven. Proofs!
Copyeditors have the job to go through your paper line-by-line, word-by-word to make sure everything is grammatically correct, properly cited, and has no typos. They’ll send you a copy of your paper in the proper format-with all of the images set on the page, looking just how it will look printed in the journal or online. Your job is to go through the paper carefully to make sure you don’t see any extra mistakes or typos.
Step Eight. Celebrate!
Your paper will be published online very soon. Great work!
Recently, Andy and I have started to collaborate on a research project together. Well, the project is his, and I’ve agreed to do some lab analyses for him in exchange for being a co-author on the research paper. Being a co-author means that on a published journal article, I will have my name as one of the people who contributed to the science in the paper. My job for this project is to pick, weigh, and analyze foraminifera for stable isotope analyses. In this post, I’ll go over briefly how I do this!
Lucky for me, Andy had already picked the foraminifera he wanted to be analyzed from his sediment samples and put these into cardboard trays. Each tray is labeled so that it corresponds with the sediment sample from which it came, thus I know exactly which sample I’m working with. The first step is to take the cardboard tray and put it under the microscope. Using a paintbrush with water, I gently pick up the foraminifera specimens and place them in an aluminum tray. After I’ve filled up all 14 of my aluminum trays, I take these and weigh them on a microbalance, which is a fancy name for a scale that measures very small weights (in this case, micrograms). I want the samples to weigh between 180 to 220 micrograms, as this is the ideal mass needed to get a good measurement. After the samples are weighed, I then put them into a tall glass vial that is numbered. I have a spreadsheet on my computer where I keep track of which sample is in which vial.
After I have about 60-80 vials of weighed foraminifera, I can then begin the process of analyzing them for stable isotope measurements. In this case, we want to measure carbon and oxygen (see our ‘Isotopes‘ and ‘Carbon & Oxygen Isotopes‘ page for more details on what these data are used for). This process is a bit tedious and always makes me nervous, but it’s also kind of fun!
Analyzing foraminifera for stable isotopes means working with a mass spectrometer, a (very expensive) machine that, very simply put, measures the amount of carbon and oxygen that are within a gas. Notice that the mass spectrometer needs a gas, not a solid, to be able to take a measurement. This is where things get fun! The first step is to make sure all of the air is out of the glass vials. To work correctly, the mass spectrometer has helium constantly being pumped through it. No air is allowed into the system, as air contains oxygen, and oxygen is one of the elements we want to measure. If air gets into the mass spectrometer or into the vials, it’ll ruin the results of the analyses. To rid the vials of air, I put the vials on a contraption that continually pushes helium into the vials through one tube while letting air out of another small tube. I let the vials fill with helium for about 4 minutes each. After the vials are filled with helium, I then put acid into each vial. Four drops of 100% pure phosphoric acid is placed into each vial. This is done to turn the foraminifera, which are made of calcium carbonate, into gas (any acid placed on calcium carbonate, the material which seashells and foraminifera are made of, will cause them to dissolve). Because calcium carbonate is CaCO3, the resulting gas includes elements of both C (carbon) and O (oxygen).
Once all the vials are filled with acid, it’s then time to start the mass spectrometer! This is a very easy process considering the machine itself is complex and intimidating (well, at least to me). In short, I basically change the file names, make sure the machine knows how many samples its analyzing, and then I click the ‘Start’ button. Each sample takes ~12 minutes to analyze, so an entire run of 60 to 80 samples takes about 12 to 16 hours.
The last part of this process will be to take the results, put them into a spreadsheet, and give them to Andy. From there, Andy will have the hard but fun job of interpreting the data and writing the majority of the research paper (with help from us, when needed).
One of my favorite parts of being a scientist is constantly learning about new ways to answer research questions that I have. I am a paleontologist, but in recent years, I have become very interested in how I can use geochemistry (looking at stable isotopes and trace elements) to address paleontological questions. Since this is a relatively new interest of mine, I have been taking classes in geochemistry, and this past semester I took an analytical geochemistry class to learn different methods that I can use to answer my own research questions. I want to share some of what that class was like because WOW, I’m still processing how awesome it was!
Two years ago now, my department (Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee) moved into a new building that has not only lab space for faculty and graduate students, but has a research lab designated for undergraduate research. This lab has many different instruments (ion chromatograph, gas chromatograph, inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer) as well as equipment for bench experiments that is intended to provide undergraduates with research experience through classes and working with faculty members and graduate students. The class that I was a part of did consist of graduate students, but we got to be a part of the process of launching the use of this lab and continued to prepare this space for use by undergraduates. This lab space in and of itself is a unique space for undergraduates to explore the geosciences, but my experience using the lab and learning the methodology of the instrumentation available in the lab was very beneficial.
Class Set Up
My favorite part of this class was how it was set up because it was so interactive. We spent the first half of the semester getting acquainted with the lab itself and learning the processes that are involved with setting up a lab like this and preparing for a safety inspection. We completed a chemical inventory, worked on developing a chemical hygiene plan, and discussed budgeting (everything from how much DI water costs to the basics of how much each standard is). While this seems pretty mundane, it was an interesting process to complete and to see how detailed the process of setting up a lab is.
The second half of the semester, each student in the class chose a method to research and teach the class to use. This was a two day lesson that we were each in charge of, the first day spent teaching the theory behind the method and how the equipment works, the second day was spent using that method to look at a quick in class experiment. This meant that not only did we each become the in-class expert on a method, but we had to be able to think about timing to stage each step of the process to using that method. Some of the methods we learned about include gas chromatography, ion chromatography, and inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES).
In addition to learning the process of setting up a lab and learning all different methods, budgeting was also emphasized in this class. Our professor was very transparent with us about how much money was spent to set up the lab as well as how much our science cost to do. With every method, every student leader included a question for us to figure out how much it would cost to run a certain number of samples using that method. This really impressed upon all of us in the class that science does cost money and more importantly, time, and how that all needs to be thought about well before wanting to do any analyses.
The set up of this class ensured that not only did we learn how to use different methods, but that we learned how to run our own labs and understand the work that goes into the different analyses that we write about wanting to complete. Not only did I walk out of the lab this semester being able to complete many different geochemical analyses on my own, but with some idea of the complexities of running a lab!
I mentioned above that part of this class was to see the breadth of projects that could be completed using the equipment that already exists in the lab. The four other people who took this class with me and myself all have VERY different areas of research and our class projects reflected that. One person was looking at fluid inclusions in granites, someone else was looking at toxins in microbes, and I was looking at trace elements in different skeletal elements of sea urchins. Almost all of us used the ICP-OES because we were interested in trace elements, but for several of us, our samples required other methods that we discussed in class to prepare the samples to be run through the ICP-OES.
All of us in the class completed all of the prep work and ran our own samples regardless of the method that we chose. Yes, we had guidance from our professor and lab manager, but the project work was all very hands on and completed by us. This gave us each a chance to apply what we had learned in class, see just how long some of these methods take, and gave us an appreciation for juggling multiple people’s lab schedules! At the end of the day though, all of us walked out of the lab with useable data to complete our chosen research projects. And, for several of us, the work done for this class project either directly helps with the completion of analyses for our theses and dissertations or helped inform us if the method we used is useful for the question we want to address.
I am going to be really honest here, at points this class was incredibly overwhelming to me-I don’t have a strong geochemistry background and I really didn’t know what I was expecting to see in the results of my research project. But I’m really glad that I took a chance on it because I did learn so much more than I thought I would. I feel more confident in my abilities to complete geochemical analyses on my own, I learned the capabilities of several different instruments and have ideas of how to use them in future research projects, and overcame some personal lab fears-using acid to break down solids into liquids is a little scary the first time you do it! But beyond the methods, this class really emphasized the process of setting up a lab for the first time and understanding how time and monetary budgets fit in to building labs and getting analyses run. I am glad that I challenged myself to learn new methods this semester and I encourage you all to step outside your comfort zone to see where you can stretch your research to!
Part of my new job is as a postdoctoral associate at a newly developed institute: Thompson Institute for Earth Systems. This institute has a primary goal of helping translate the complex science done at the University of Florida as it relates to Floridians. This includes anything related to the environment and the primary Earth systems (life, land, water, air). Recently, the institute was awarded a large grant to pursue a project to get scientists into Florida classrooms. To help promote and share content we hosted a workshop at the annual Florida Association of Science Teachers (FAST).
My supervisor had submitted the proposal for this workshop but was also giving a lecture the day before on the larger project and suggested I run the workshop instead. The idea was to give a brief but useful content overview to the educators and then allow time for lesson plan development and questions. This was a surprisingly daunting task: I’m used to giving quick research talks on a very specific topic and here I was tasked with describing how global processes can affect Floridians.
It took me an incredibly long amount of time to decide how I wanted to structure the talk. A colleague had suggested we play BINGO during the talk. I made BINGO cards for the teachers with terms that I would use during the content portion of the workshop. If someone got BINGO they would have to share the terms and describe how they are interconnected. One of the key points of the workshop was to exhibit how interconnected all of the spheres really are. The talk began with a direct issue here in Florida – sea level rise. NOAA has a sea level rise viewer where you can simulate what happens in a specific area when sea level rises. So I zoomed in to the area directly around where the conference was in Miami, Florida. The simulator starts at 0 and goes up to 6 feet, and unfortunately the average elevation in Florida is only just above 6 feet. I then walked the educators through the four basic spheres of Earth system and how we can visualize them here in Florida. This included how sea level rises, ocean circulation, erosion and weathering, cave and sinkhole (karst) features, greenhouse gases, and more!
The next portion of the workshop was designated to allow the teachers time to brainstorm ideas for a lesson or activity and to ask questions to content experts (the rest of our lab group and team was there in the room). There were some really great activities thought out and we were able to discuss ideas with the teachers for how we can better serve them as an academic institute. Overall, it was a great experience for me to share more information about Earth’s natural systems and foster discussions with educators.
In early November, some of the Time Scavengers team (myself, Jen, Sarah, Maggie, and Kyle) attended the annual Geological Society of America Meeting. This year, the meeting was held in Indianapolis, Indiana; a nice midwestern city that was very walkable with lots of restaurant options (yes, I judge cities based on the quality of their food). In previous posts, we’ve talked about these annual (some being in Canada) and regional conferences and their importance. Here, I want to provide an update on some of the scientific and educational aspects of Time Scavengers that we presented at the meeting. As some of you may know, our site isn’t just an educational website; Jen and I are also using the site as a sort of experiment. Specifically, we want to know how we can best reach a broad audience using social media and social media advertising tools. I’ll tell you about our presentations, and the major findings from each one!
First, Jen gave a wonderful overview talk about the Time Scavengers site. She gave her talk in an educational session, which are not as well-attended as the science sessions in general. Her talk included the story as to how Time Scavengers began and the motivation behind the site, the reason for inviting collaborators to join us on the project, and the purpose of each part of the site (blogs and static informational pages). Since we were at a conference full of other geologists and avocational scientists, we also put out a call for anyone interested to contact us for collaboration (such as writing a blog post). Jen’s talk was well-attended and well-received! The room was packed, and several people took a picture of the contact information slide during Jen’s talk. We also received good feedback from people regarding the talk throughout the conference. The last part of the talk included to images of our posters that Sarah and I were to present later in the week. So having the overview talk first, before the posters were presented, set Sarah and I up quite well.
Sarah was the first to present a poster on her blogs, in which she has used several large and high-quality images to explain the geology of a particular region (see her posts about Acadia National Park and the Bay of Fundy). She compared how these posts engaged readers compared to some of her other posts that were not so image-heavy. To compare these posts (lots of images vs. not so many images), she looked at the number of visitors to the site on the day each blog post was released, as well as the engagement rate of each post (engagement rate= number of interactions/number of people who see the post). Sarah concluded that over time, her image-heavy posts would gain more views and interactions than her posts with less images.
I was the next to present a poster later in the week. The data I presented was related to six advertisement campaigns Jen and I set up on Facebook. The purpose of paid advertisements are to gain a larger following on social media and to reach a wider audience. There are two main types of ads on Facebook: a paid ad, where you create an ad in the Facebook Business Manager site, and a boosted post. A boosted post is a post that is already on social media (that shows up on a page’s timeline), but you pay money for that post to be ‘broadcast’ to a larger audience outside of the page’s followers. Jen and I have experimented with both types of ads, and we have also experimented with using both static images in the ad and short slideshows.
To compare which ads did best, I looked at the number of engagements each ad received (clicks, reactions, shares) and the number of visitors to the site for the period for which the ads ran. I also calculated the engagement rate for each ad. It turns out that the ad with the highest engagement rate was the first ad (boosted post, static image), although this ad did not have the highest number of engagements. What was different about the first ad is that Jen and I shared it into several groups on Facebook (Women in Paleontology, etc.). The ad that gained the most engagements was a 6-second slideshow with images from the site (it was a paid ad). However, this ad had one of the lowest engagement rates, meaning although it was seen by a large number of people, not many of those who saw it interacted with the ad.
I then compared the number of new visitors to the site, the percentage of women and men, and percentage of site visitors by age group during the ad campaigns to the same variables for the entire site. The number of site visitors during ad campaigns didn’t increase substantially, and the percentage of women, men, and site visitors by age group remained relatively the same from the site total. This indicates that our ad campaigns aren’t doing a great job getting new people to visit the site. Instead, the site attracts an audience by releasing new blog posts and content. In our site user data (which shows us the number of visitors to the site on any given day), peaks in users occurs on days where we release new blog posts. So for the Time Scavengers site, maybe paid advertisements aren’t the way for us to build a larger community and reach more people.
To recap, all three of us who presented on Time Scavengers (Jen, Sarah, and I) had great conversations with other people who are also making educational content and work in the realm of science communication. All in all, GSA 2018 was a huge success in terms of sharing science, meeting new people, forming new collaborations, and learning about the cool new things our friends and colleagues have been working on!
A lot of the research my lab and I do is related to understanding how the oceans worked in the past, the ocean’s response to climate perturbations, and understanding plankton evolution. Every now and then, we find the need to do a different type of research: testing a new or old method. This fall, my lab mate Serena, my advisor, Mark, and myself have developed a little experiment to see if boiling foraminifera in different solutions has any effect on their shells. Specifically, we’re interested to see if boiling affects the isotopic measurements of the shells. This has not been tested thoroughly before, which is surprising. In this post, I’ll talk about the first part of the experiment, and I’ll elaborate on the other part of this experiment in a subsequent post.
You may be thinking ‘why on Earth would you boil foraminifera in the first place?” When we, scientists, get in sediment samples from deep sea sediment cores, sometimes the sediment is very hard or full of fine-grained sediments. These hard and/or fine-grained sediments have a tendency to not want to break down and release the foraminifera shells contained inside. To aid in breaking down tough sediments, we often turn to boiling the sediment in tap water or other solutions.
To begin the experiment, Serena and I chose four different sediment samples from different places around the world and of varying ages. We split each sample into quarters to be tested in our boiling experiment. We then chose three different solutions in which to boil our samples: tap water, Sparkleen (a mild detergent) mixed with tap water, and Miramine (an oily substance used as a emulsifier and corrosion inhibitor, but also good for breaking down rocks) mixed with tap water. Each quarter of the samples we chose were placed in these solutions in a beaker, which were then placed on a hot plate. The samples were brought to a slow boil and left for an hour.
The fourth quarter from each sample was used as a control for which to compare everything else against (from here out I’ll call these the ‘control quarters’). The control quarters were simply rinsed over a screen using tap water. Doing this removes the small sediment particles, but holds back the foraminifera shells.
After the samples were finished boiling, we then washed each one over a screen in our sink, just like we did with the control quarters. These were placed in an oven overnight at a very low temperature to dry. Once the samples were dried, Serena and I picked out three different species of foraminifera from each sample: a species that lived at the very top of the water column, a species that lived deeper in the water column, and a benthic foraminifera species that lived on the seafloor.
The last step was to put the species we had picked from each sample into a vial for further analysis. The next step will be to put these vials in our mass spectrometer, a device used to measure the isotopic signature from each sample. We’ll then compare the measurements from the boiled samples to the control quarter samples to determine if the isotopic measurements from foraminifera shells are affected by boiling!