Adriane Lam

113: Weddell Sea, Antarctica

AdrianeLeave a comment

Ocean Drilling Program Leg 113: Weddell Sea, Antarctica

Location map of where sites were drilled during Leg 113. Figure from ODP Leg 113 Initial Reports, Introduction

Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 113 drilled sites in the Weddell Sea, which is surrounded on nearly three sides by Antarctica. Some of the sites were drilled from Maud Rise, which is an underwater plateau, representing an area that stands above the deeper seafloor crust which surrounds it. Maud Rise was formed as part of a large igneous province (LIP), which is a large extrusion of lava that erupted (non-violently) in the ocean or on land. Maud Rise was formed approximately 140 to 122 million years ago, in the Cretaceous Period. 

ODP Leg 113 had several objectives. The first was to determine when Antarctic ice sheets first began to form, and if they had been permanent since their formation. The second objective was to monitor the development of Antarctic Bottom Water, a very cold and very dense water mass that flows along the bottom of the ocean floor, and forms near Antarctica. Using sediments recovered from Leg 113, scientists also wanted to determine how this very cold water mass responded to ancient warming and cooling events through time. The third and fourth objectives were related to marine organisms that live in the waters surrounding Antarctica, in the Weddell Sea. How did they live in such cold conditions, and did different species respond to such warming and cooling events through time? These objectives, in part, were addressed by drilling a transect of sites across the Weddell Sea, in shallower to progressively deeper waters, to obtain sediments from shallow- to deep-water masses. 

Cross section of the Weddell Sea and Maud Rise, indicating where the sites were drilled with respect to water depth. Figure from ODP Leg 113 Initial Reports, Introduction

Leg 113 recovered sediments that dated back to the Cretaceous, the time the dinosaurs were alive. Several sedimentary sections were recovered that contained the end-Cretaceous Mass Extinction that occurred 66 million years ago, the extinction event that led to the demise of non-avian dinosaurs. The sediments were used to determine the history of Antarctica through the entire Cenozoic, or the last 66 million years of Earth’s history. The earliest Cenozoic sediments from the Weddell Sea indicate that the region was warm and semi-arid (Barker et al., 1988). Within the Oligocene (~25 million years ago), the sediments were used to determine the approximate size of the Antarctic ice sheet that formed during this time, and was relatively stable (Escutia et al., 2019). Around the Middle Miocene (~15 million years ago), another expansion of Antarctic ice was found to occur (Barker et al., 1988). 

Leg 113 was the first expedition to recover sediments from the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which was a short-lived but intense warming event that occurred around 55.5 million years ago. The PETM section recovered from Site 690 is one of the most expanded sections of the PETM ever to be drilled (Röhl et al., 2007), and as such, it is the site that is most intensively studied for this event. The PETM lasted only about 20,000–50,000 years, but within this short time frame, the Earth warmed by 5–8°C. The PETM is often studied as an analogue for future climate change, as warming happened rapidly during this event. 

he Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) that occurs in Core 19 drilled from Site 690 during Leg 113. The snowy white sediments on the left (sections 1, 2) are full of microfossils. As the bottom of the ocean became more acidic with warming, the fossils were dissolved and the sediments became darker tan to brown in color (sections 3, 4, 5, CC on the right).

Most of the sediments drilled from the Weddell Sea contained microfossils, tiny fossils that can only be seen with the help of microscopes. Using these microfossils from Antarctic sediments, paleontologists were able to determine when different species of microorganisms evolved and went extinct (e.g., Harwood & Gersonde, 1990;  Leckie, 1990; Funakawa & Nishi, 2005), and in turn use different species to help reconstruct the ancient environments around Antarctica. 

References

Barker, P. F., Kennett, J. P., O’Connell, S., Berkowitz, S., Bryant, W. R., Burckle, L. H., … & Wise, S. W. (1988). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, Vol. 113. Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Covering Leg 113 of the cruises of the drilling vessel JOIDES Resolution, Valparaiso, Chile, to East Cove, Falkland Islands, Sites 689-697, 25 December 1986-11 March 1987. Ocean Drilling Program.

Escutia, C., DeConto, R. M., Dunbar, R., Santis, L. D., Shevenell, A., & Naish, T. (2019). Keeping an eye on Antarctic Ice Sheet stability. Oceanography, 32(1), 32-46.

Funakawa, S., & Nishi, H. (2005). Late middle Eocene to late Oligocene radiolarian biostratigraphy in the Southern Ocean (maud rise, ODP Leg 113, site 689). Marine Micropaleontology, 54(3-4), 213-247.

Harwood, D. M., & Gersonde, R. (1990). 26. LOWER CRETACEOUS DIATOMS FROM ODP LEG 113 SITE 693 (WEDDELL SEA). PART 2: RESTING SPORES, CHRYSOPHYCEAN CYSTS, AN ENDOSKELETAL DINOFLAGELLATE, AND NOTES ON THE ORIGIN OF DIATOMS1. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, scientific results (Vol. 113, pp. 403-425).

Leckie, M. R. (1990). Middle Cretaceous planktonic foraminifers of the Antarctic margin: hole 693A, ODP LEG 1131. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results (Vol. 113, pp. 319-324).

Röhl, U., Westerhold, T., Bralower, T. J., & Zachos, J. C. (2007). On the duration of the Paleocene‐Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8(12).

130: Ontong Java Plateau

AdrianeLeave a comment

Ocean Drilling Program Leg 130: Ontong Java Plateau

Location map for sites that were drilled during Leg 130 on Ontong Java Plateau. Figure from Leg 130 Initial Reports, Introduction

Ontong Java Plateau (OJP) is an oceanic plateau or region of elevated ocean crust that rises up higher than the surrounding ocean crust. The OJP was formed around 120 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, and when it was first formed from volcanic processes, mainly the eruption of basalt (a volcanic rock) on the seafloor. Today, the OJP remains the largest oceanic plateau on Earth.  

The main objective of Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 130 was to drill a series of sediment cores from atop OJP, with the recovery of sediments aged from the late Cretaceous Period to the Recent. As OJP is a shallower-water region, shells of marine plankton, which are single-celled organisms, collect in great quantities in warm, shallow-water regions. Using properties of the sediments, the fossils themselves, and the chemical signatures from the shells of fossil plankton through time, scientists aimed to reconstruct the ancient climate in this region through time using the sediments recovered from OJP. The secondary objective of Leg 130 was to drill into the seafloor basalts on OJP to better understand the origin and development of the oceanic plateau.  

Thin section images of fossil plankton, called foraminifera, that are present in great numbers from the Leg 130 sections. These microfossils are tiny, and can only be viewed with the help of a microscope. Their tests are made of calcium carbonate, the same material as seashells you would find at the beach! Figure from ODP Leg 130 Initial Reports, Site 806

Leg 130 drilled a total of 5889 meters (3.65 miles!) of sediment and basalt, which amounted to a total of 639 cores. The recovered sediments were full of microfossils – tiny fossils that can only be viewed with the help of a microscope. Using these fossil-laden sediments, scientists were able to conduct studies related to evolution of marine plankton, and use the chemistry of fossil tests (shells), along with other properties of the sediments, to reconstruct ancient climate conditions. 

Some studies focused on how evolution of marine plankton occurs at sea (Hull & Norris, 2009) and when certain species evolved and went extinct from 23 million years ago to the Recent (Chaisson & Leckie, 1993). Scientists were also able to reconstruct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2; a greenhouse gas) levels for the past 20 million years of Earth’s history (Tripati et al., 2009, 2011). The early Pliocene (4.5–3.0 million years ago) was a time in Earth’s history when CO2 was at or near present-day conditions, and as such this time period is useful to investigate Earth systems processes and how they behave under elevated greenhouse gas concentrations. Across this time interval, scientists used chemical methods from Leg 130 cores to reconstruct of western equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures (Wara et al., 2005). The sea surface temperature data from Leg 130 sites was compared with sea surface temperatures from eastern equatorial Pacific sites. Scientists found that during the early Pliocene, the equatorial Pacific Ocean had a reduced east to west temperature gradient, which resembles El Niño states today.  Reconstruction of atmospheric circulation patterns from Leg 130 sediments indicated atmospheric circulation and wind patterns began to resemble modern-day patterns around 900,000 years ago (McClymont & Rosell-Melé, 2005). 

An image of a core section that was drilled during Leg 130. This section shows darker colored lines that cross the core. These are trace fossils, or ancient tracks, trails, and burrows, from organisms that were moving through the sediments and feeding on organic matter. These traces are called Zoophycos. Figure from ODP Leg 139, Initial Reports Site 806

References

Chaisson, W.P., and Leckie, R.M., 1993. High-resolution Neogene planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy of Site 806, Ontong Java Plateau (western equatorial Pacific). In Berger, W.H., Kroenke, L.W., Mayer, L.A., et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 130: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 137–178. doi:10.2973/odp.proc.sr.130.010.1993

Hull, P.M., and Norris, R.D., 2009. Evidence for abrupt speciation in a classic case of gradual evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 106(50):21224–21229. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902887106

McClymont, E.L., and Rosell-Melé, A., 2005. Links between the onset of modern Walker circulation and the mid-Pleistocene climate transition. Geology, 33(5):389–392. doi:10.1130/G21292.1

Tripati, A.K., Roberts, C.D., and Eagle, R.A., 2009. Coupling of CO2 and ice sheet stability over major climate transitions of the last 20 million years. Science, 326(5958):1394–1397. doi:10.1126/science.1178296

Tripati, A.K., Roberts, C.D., Eagle, R.A., and Li, G., 2011. A 20 million year record of planktic foraminiferal B/Ca ratios: systematics and uncertainties in pCO2 reconstructions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 75(10):2582–2610. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.01.018

Wara, M. W., Ravelo, A. C., & Delaney, M. L. (2005). Permanent El Niño-like conditions during the Pliocene warm period. Science, 309(5735), 758-761.

Workshop Hosting & Planning: Considerations from an Early Career Researcher

AdrianeLeave a comment

Adriane here–

For the past year and a half, I have been a steering committee member, with the purpose of the committee to develop a series of workshops. In this post, I’ll give some background of the initiative, outline the purpose of the workshops, but mainly focus on factors to think about if you, the reader, are considering creating your own workshop or participating on a workshop committee. 

The International Ocean Discovery Program IMPACT Workshops

The steering committee of which I am a part was formed with significant support from the International Ocean Discovery Program, or IODP for short. IODP is a wonderful program in which scientists from participating countries in the program get to sail for two months at sea on a research vessel, which is currently the JOIDES Resolution (JR), and drill sediment cores from the seafloor (click here to learn more about the JR, where it has most recently sailed, where it currently is, and to read blogs written by scientists currently sailing on the ship). 

Every few decades, the scientific ocean drilling community (the general name used for the community of scientists, artists, science communicators, and others who make the program work) come together to write a science framework. The framework outlines the major approaches and important scientific frontiers for the next phase of scientific ocean drilling. Included in the framework are also some broader impact goals. The new science framework was recently published, which outlines such goals and aspirations through 2050; thus, it is aptly named the 2050 Science Framework. Within the broader impacts section of the 2050 Science Framework, sections are included such as ‘Inspiring Educators and the Public through Discovery’, ‘Training the Next Generation of Scientists’, ‘International Collaboration’, ‘Advancing Diversity and Inclusion’, ‘Knowledge Sharing’, and ‘Engaging with Other Fields’.  

My colleagues and I, who are all passionate about these topics, outlined in the 2050 Science Framework broader impacts section and decided to create a series of workshops to chart the future course of science communication and education outreach for scientific ocean drilling. Such efforts are in direct support of the goals outlined in the 2050 Science Framework. Our steering committee is composed of educators and scientists with various experiences and backgrounds in education, science, and policy, all of whom are passionate about education outreach and science communication. 

We decided to name the workshops the IMPACT Workshop Series, which comprises three workshops that ran this past summer 2021, and a larger workshop to (hopefully!) be held in person in June 2022. We decided to focus on three main topics from the 2050 Science Framework: Engaging the Public, Informing Policymakers, and Preparing the Next Generation. Our main steering committee split into three groups to function as smaller steering committees to create each workshop. Specifically, I was on the Preparing the Next Generation sub-committee with three other steering committee members. 

Factors to consider when hosting workshops

Currently, I am a postdoctoral fellow at a large research university. This means I have lots of responsibilities, the most important of which is to support the students working in my lab and keep doing activities that build my experiences as a researcher, scientist, advisor, and science communicator. In other words, I have a busy schedule with lots to do and keep up with! So, before taking on any tasks or saying ‘yes’ to any opportunities, I need to consider very carefully if such opportunity will be hurtful (take up too much of my time without leading to huge outcomes and do not help build up my experiences), or advantageous (take up my time but lead to very exciting opportunities and build my experiences). In addition, before saying yes to opportunities, I also consider if the opportunity is fulfilling to me and aligns with my passions, self-interests, and goals. This bit is likely true for most early career researchers who are currently looking for permanent employment, are pre-tenured faculty, and others who have limited time but want to be involved with their communities. Thus, the advice below is tailored to help folks who may want to create a workshop or join a workshop steering committee think through the benefits of such an endeavor. 

Carefully consider time commitment and workload

In my opinion, time is the most important factor to consider when thinking about creating a workshop. The IMPACT steering committee met about once a week over a year prior to our first workshop, which ran in June 2021. We met for approximately an hour during our meetings, and because we have members from the east coast of the continental U.S. to Hawai’i, these meeting times were outside of normal workday hours for some of us (e.g., 6 pm EST) — which is not uncommon for projects such as this.

As the Next Generation workshop date approached, our sub-committee began meeting sometimes twice a week, for 2–3 hours per meeting. Such longer meetings were essential to finish outlining, planning, and organizing the workshop. Often, all sub-committee members would walk away from the meeting with a ‘To-Do’ list to accomplish before a deadline we all agreed on. Such tasks outside of meetings included things like drafting and sending emails, writing text for the workshop web pages, gathering resources for our web pages, setting up Google Drive folders, and creating slide shows for the day of the workshops. We also set up meeting times with our speakers prior to our 2-day workshop. All of these small tasks and meetings really added up to a large amount of time. About two weeks prior to the Next Generation workshop, I was spending a good chunk of my time in the office dedicated to planning. 

So, careful consideration should be given to how much time you are willing to contribute to creating a workshop, as the time invested can be immense to make the workshop run as smoothly as possible. Looking back, my time and that of my colleagues’ was a good investment, as I am quite passionate about the topics the workshop touched on and know the information we have gathered will help shape the scientific ocean drilling community. 

Fostering a supportive environment for the team

From the above section regarding time commitments, it should be clear that workshop planning takes a lot of work! It is quite easy to join a committee, board, or group and just jump in without being mindful of our behaviors and simple ways in which we may be excluding others (or being excluded ourselves by others’ behaviors), and working and/or communicating in ways that are ineffective .Thus, it is imperative to consider how you can and will create an environment that is comfortable for everyone to talk, listen, and plan together as a team. 

Along those same lines, it is also important  that the team itself is efficient, mindful of others, and works well together. I feel very fortunate that the IMPACT Steering Committee is composed of folks who have previous leadership experience, and bring a lot of different perspectives to the table. These differing perspectives, experience working with groups, and leadership capabilities have created a space where every committee member’s opinion is heard, and it is a comfortable place to voice my own concerns and opinions. This isn’t to say we always agree with one another (we are human, after all), but having a team that knows how to communicate, compromise, and listen is very valuable. 

When building your own team or committee, it is important to have folks involved who have prior leadership experience and are highly organized. In this way, those who may not have had prior leadership experience can learn from this person, and begin to develop their own methods of and style of leadership. For example, one of our steering committee members has had extensive experience organizing and planning workshops. She suggested we have our speakers meet virtually prior to our workshop in order for them to meet one another, for us to more thoroughly explain the workshop goals, and walk them through the schedule. Even though I have leadership experience, this was a new method to me, and it worked wonderfully! I have also learned a ton of other leadership and organizational tips and tricks from the more experienced members on our committee. 

It is also imperative to build a team of people who represent different identities, life experiences, stages in their careers, and specialities. Our IMPACT workshop steering committee decided from the start that we would conduct the meetings and workshops within a JEDIA (justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, accessibility) framework. Breaking down barriers within STEM, or anywhere, to create a more equitaqble, inclusive, and accessible environment for everyone, is a hard and persistent task, and one that is best done when folks from different identities and backgrounds come together and work hard. This is why it is of utmost importance to be sure you are including folks from different identities on your team. For example, I have had to advocate a few times to my group to please include more early career researchers. Other times, folks have pointed out that all of our speakers on our list of potential invitees were white folks. Every time someone on the team has pointed out an observation that does not align with our JEDIA principles, we have worked hard to correct our actions. Thus, when building your team, think about who is not in the room, and whose voices are being excluded. And it is not enough to simply include folks from different identities; ensure, as a leader, they are being heard and respected by all members of the committee. 

Be prepared to be an effective communicator and listener 

As touched on above, communication is key to any successful relationship of any nature. Working with your colleagues on a steering committee to plan a workshop is no different. Clear and concise communication is imperative to make workshop planning as smooth as possible, and can even translate to a more positive experience for your workshop speakers and attendees. Often, such workshop committees are composed of an array of folks from different backgrounds, life experiences, and ages. This means that everyone’s level of comfort with different means of communication will vary, and the best means of communication should be discussed and respected from the start. For example, the IMPACT committee uses email as our primary way of group communication, but we also set up a Slack channel. In addition, the Steering Committee chairs create an agenda for each meeting, and we take Minutes. In this way, if one of our team members is not able to make a meeting, they can easily see what we discussed and the major points of the meeting.

Good communication also includes speaking up when you don’t understand someone’s ideas or thoughts, or are uncomfortable with the direction in which an initiative is heading. But, good communication is more than talking- it also includes good listening skills. Personally, I am trying to teach myself to be a better active and mindful listener to really hear my friends, family, and colleagues. So, when thinking about planning a workshop or joining a workshop committee, get comfortable with good communication (easier said than done, I know), and be open to being more open with your colleagues. 

Acquiring funding for your workshop 

Often, workshops require some level of financial support. Other workshops, if held virtually, may not require funds. If your workshop does require funding, it is important to think about how much funding (approximately) your workshop will require, and how funding will be obtained prior to the initiation of the project. In my opinion, it is totally okay to reach out to other organizations, non-profits, societies, etc. whose missions align with the goals of your workshop and ask for financial support. In addition, there are pots of money available to support workshops, such as the U.S. Science Support Program and the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling’s MagellanPlus Workshop Series Programme (both to support endeavors related to scientific ocean drilling).

Happy National Fossil Day 2021!

AdrianeLeave a comment

National Fossil Day poster for 2021 by the National Park Service.

Today is International Fossil Day! 

International Fossil Day  is an initiative by the International Paleontological Association and the National Park Service (National Fossil Day in the U.S.), the idea is to spread the interest in the life of the past and many different organisations and museums around the world host events or activities today. Of course we, the Time Scavengers team, have to participate in this, there can never be too much paleo-related fun! 

We want to celebrate IFD by showing off our team members’ favourite extinct species or individual fossils, some facts about the species or individual and why we picked them as our favourites.

Click here to visit the National Park Service website to learn more about National Fossil Day, and here to visit the International Palaeontological Association to learn more about International Fossil Day!

Linda

A fossil cave bear skeleton. Image credit: Wikipedia.

Most of my paleontology lectures during my undergrad took place in small rooms somewhere deep in the side wings of the institute building, on the edge of the paleontological collection/museum that is located within the institute. Whenever me and my friends were waiting for our professors to show up, we would stare and marvel at the exhibited specimens. I vividly remember walking into that area for the first time, it is dominated by a huge, mounted skeleton of an adult cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) and I was completely blown away by the sheer power it radiates. I didn’t care too much about the T. rex skull cast around the corner that most others found so fascinating. From that first day of paleo classes, having my own mounted cave bear skeleton has been on the top of my bucket list. U. spelaeus lived during the Pleistocene across both northern Asia and Europe and went extinct during the Last Glacial Maximum about 24,000 years ago. They are closely related to brown bears (Ursus arctos), the two species have a last common ancestor about 1.2 million years ago. Even though they were huge, powerful bears that were reaching 3.5m (11.5ft) when standing upright, with large teeth and fearsome claws, it’s currently thought that the majority of the western populations were eating an almost exclusively vegetarian diet! Recently, two very well preserved frozen cave bear carcasses have been discovered in two separate areas of thawing permafrost in Russia, an adult and a cub, both with almost all soft tissue present and intact. I’m already excited and looking forward to reading all the new research that will be done on these specimens!

Maggie 

Cast of U. anceps skull. Image credit: Wikipedia.

I worked at the Field Museum of Natural History during the summer of 2015 and that experience was what solidified my interest in paleontology. I worked with my supervisor on Eocene mammals from the western United States and had some of my first experiences doing large scientific outreach events during that summer. Because of that summer I will always have a soft spot for Uintatheres!

Uintatheres (U. anceps) lived during the Eocene in North America and were large browsers. These animals looked similar to rhinos but male U. anceps had six knob-shaped protrusions coming off of their skulls. Part of my experience working with these fossils was reorganizing the collections space that housed the skulls, they are incredibly heavy! I mentioned that U. anceps were browsers, but they also had long canine teeth that resemble the canines of saber tooth cats. These teeth may have been used as a defense mechanism but also may have played a role in how they plucked leaves from plants. While I don’t work on Eocene mammals now, Uintatheres will always be special to me for the role they played in getting me excited about paleontology and scientific outreach!

Whitney

Whitney next to Asteroceras stellare.

I cannot pick just one fossil to highlight right now, so here are two of my favorites! In 2016, I was studying in England and visited the Natural History Museum in London where I saw an incredible ammonite, Asteroceras stellare. Asteroceras was a large ammonite that lived during the Early Jurassic and whose shell reached nearly three feet in diameter. Asteroceras was a nektonic carnivore who might have fed on fish, crustaceans, and bivalves.

Whitney in front of an ichthyosaur!

My favorite vertebrate fossil is the Ichthyosaur. I loved visiting the Jurassic Coast in England and got to explore Lyme Regis, both the birthplace of Mary Anning and a town that had references to paleontology everywhere you looked. You can see ichthyosaur fossils in both the Lyme Regis Museum and the Natural History Museum in London and at the NHM, you can see some of the specimens that Mary Anning and her family had collected along the Jurassic Coast. Ichthyosaurs (Greek for “fish lizard”), are marine reptiles that lived during much of the Mesozoic and were thought to be one of the top aquatic predators of their time.

Mike

Mike in front of an American mastodon statue!

I have three favorite extinct species: the American mastodon (Mammut americanum), the dinosaur Parasaurolophus, and the chalicothere Moropus elatus. Mastodons are distant relatives of the elephants, and they seem to be overshadowed by the wooly mammoth. However, both lived in North America until the end of the Pleistocene epoch. I’ve always thought that Parasaurolophus was an elegant duck-billed dinosaur, and I’ve seen them featured in several movies in the Jurassic Park series. I think that chalicotheres are so bizarre! Distant relatives to horses, rhinos, and tapirs, imagine a big draft horse with giant claws instead of hooves! I’ve seen several skeletons of these over the years. Moropus elatus went extinct in the Miocene epoch.

Mike next to a Moropus elatus skeleton!

A statue of Parasaurolophus.

Alex

Like anyone in paleo would tell you I can’t pick one particular fossil organism as my favorite. Currently my favorite fossil organism is the “bear-dog” known as Amphicyon ingens which would have been a formidable predator during the Mid-Miocene. The cenozoic was a time for innovation in mammals and bear-dogs were the best of both worlds. All the stoic grandeur of a bear and all the cute charm of a dog, what more could you want? The picture shown was taken at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Amphicyon

Jonathan Jordan (Paleo Policy Podcast)

For me, the Mesozoic reigns supreme. However, my recent trip to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles gave me a greater appreciation for the Cenozoic era and mammalian evolution in general. While it may not be my favorite fossil ever, I was captivated by Panthera atrox’s look and the idea of an American Serengeti 340,000 to 11,000 years ago. Genetic analysis suggests with high likelihood that Panthera atrox is a close relative of the Eurasian Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea). After the Bering Strait land bridge was submerged by rising sea levels, Panthera atrox was isolated from its Eurasian relatives and became a distinct species that has been found as north as Alaska and as south as Mexico. Neat! Check out an image of Panthera atrox’s skull on the Smithsonian Learning Lab site!

Kristina

I’m fortunate to have worked on many different types of animals during my career, starting with dinosaurs, then moving to Devonian brachiopods and their encrusting organisms, and now working on much younger Pleistocene-aged animals that are still alive today. I mostly study biotic interactions, such as predation, so I thought I would share my favourite trace fossil (ichnotaxon), Caedichnus! Trace fossils are different than a body fossil because they show evidence (or traces) of an organism or its behaviour. In the case of Caedichnus, this trace fossil is created by a crab trying to break into the shell of a snail by peeling away at the shell opening (aperture) until it can reach the snail’s soft body. Imagine having a crab try to peel your shell back like an orange – scary! Caedichnus traces are useful for determining how many crabs were in an area, and identifying patterns of crab predation through space and time. I’m now using them to determine the impacts of climate change and human activity on crab fisheries since pre-human times.

Adriane

Like most of my colleagues above, it is incredibly hard for me to say which fossil is my favorite! So instead, I’ll talk about my favorite fossil group, the foraminifera. Foraminifera are single-celled protists that live in the surface ocean (planktic foraminifera) or in/on ocean sediments (benthic foraminifera). Planktic foraminifera are my favorites; they evolved about 175 million years ago, and still live in the global ocean today! One of the ways which we know about past climate states how the ocean behaved to such warming and cooling events of the geologic past is through analyzing the chemistry of fossil foraminifera shells, or tests! Foraminifera are also incredibly useful in studies of evolution, as they have a robust fossil record. Learn more about Foraminifera here!

Various planktic (surface-dwelling) foraminifera (marine plankton) species. Images are 60-100x.

What’s YOUR favourite extinct species? Let us know in the comments, maybe we will feature them in a future post!

Field Camp: An Introduction & Personal Experiences

Adriane1 Comment

In geology, fieldwork includes the direct observation, description, and sampling (or additional analyses) of rock outcrops, rock exposures, other geological features, and landscapes in their natural environment. To prepare geoscientists for field work, undergraduate geoscience students are often required to take field camp. Field camp can be an important component of geological studies, offering opportunities for collecting data and fine – tuning observation and mapping skills that students may be introduced to in the lab. While some argue that field camp is a critical part of an undergraduate geology degree, field camp can be quite exclusionary and should not be a requirement for a degree. That being said, there are numerous advantages and challenges of partaking in field camp or conducting field work. Here, we share our perspectives on field camp and our experiences, as well as share some ideas about how you can win money to attend field camp. 

Basics of Attending Field Camp

Field camp provides an opportunity to get hands-on experiences in sample/specimen collection and develop mapping skills. Essentially, it is a practical application of all of the coursework you have taken as a geoscience student .

Some field programs connect with other institutional programs at a shared ‘base camp’. This promotes networking and relationships to be built outside of your field cohort. For example, Jen was based at the Yellowstone Bighorn Research Association and a field camp from Houston was also residing there during the summer. Although work was largely separate, we ate meals together and shared common facilities. Some field camp programs accept external applicants, which promotes meeting new peers and experiencing the field together.  

Field course requirements can vary greatly by program and in some cases, field courses are not a requirement of the program. Some programs require six credit hours in field work which may be held over a six week long field camp. Additionally, some field camps and courses have prerequisites, which could include more specialized courses such as sedimentology, stratigraphy, or structural geology. Another aspect to keep in mind is the cost of field camp. Some field courses are quite expensive and do not provide financial assistance. Some courses require you to get your own transportation to the base camp, which requires additional resources and logistical planning. As field courses are commonly six weeks, attendees must take off work reducing their income and available time. Other costs include any gear you must purchase to safely attend. 

In a lot of cases, universities and colleges may have some source of funding to help their students attend field camp. These funds are, in most cases, provided by alumni donations that help cover a large chunk, but not all, of the students’ field course expenses.

There are also a few scholarships and grants you can apply to to attend field camp. Here a few examples of such awards:

Personal Experiences

Whitney Lapic, attended as an undergraduate with Mount Holyoke College

Field camp was not offered at my undergraduate institution, Mount Holyoke College. My program did offer a class which was based on a trip to Death Valley that was held over spring break every other year, but this was the closest thing we had to a field course. At the time, I did not think that seeking out a field camp would be worthwhile as I was not going into a subdiscipline that was field work intensive. That being said, I still wanted to gain field experience – and I believed that the experience was a requirement for me to get into graduate school. 

My greatest concern for field work was being able to physically keep up with the group and I know that this fear, and the cost of field camp, greatly deterred me from attending. I was however, extremely lucky to have been accepted as an exchange student at the University of Kent in Canterbury, U.K. for a semester and decided to take some time to create my own miniature field excursions while abroad. After plenty of research, I organized a series of trips to the nearby Gault Clay formation in Folkestone, which was a brief and inexpensive bus trip away. Here, I was able to work at my own pace (while trying to beat the tide) and gain experience in collecting, preparing, and identifying fossil specimens from start to finish. While this was by no means a replacement for a field course, it still introduced me to new challenges and allowed me to gain experience on my own time. It certainly helped that I was in a location of my choosing, so it was of significant interest to me. 

Linda Dämmer, attended as an undergraduate with University of Bonn (Germany)

I studied Geosciences at the University of Bonn (Germany). The system there works a bit differently from many US geology programmes: Almost all courses, with just a few exceptions, had a mandatory field work component. These field trips ranged from a few hours used to visit a little stream nearby and practice different methods to estimate the amount of water flowing down the stream per hour, to traveling abroad to spend 10-14 days practising geological mapping or learning about regional geological features. I’ve probably participated in close to 20 field trips during my undergraduate studies, I visited Austria, the Netherlands, Spain and Bulgaria during these excursions as well as many sites in Germany. Except for the far away field trips (Bulgaria and Spain) where we had to pay for our flights, these were generally fairly low cost, since the university covered the majority of the expenses, most of the time the students had to pay about 50€ (approx $60) or less as a contribution. There have been people who were unable to attend the mandatory field trip components of the programme, for a variety of reasons (for example pregnancies or disabilities), and they usually were able to instead do a different activity such as written assignments instead. In addition, for many courses more than one field trip option was offered, because taking an entire class on a field trip at the same time doesn’t work well. So based on interests, schedules and financial situation, everyone could often choose between different field trips, that would all count for the same course. I have learned so much during each field trip. Seeing geological/environmental features ‘in the wild’ has helped me tremendously to deepen my understanding of the processes involved and I’m very grateful for these experiences. But they also – and maybe even more so – helped me understand my physical boundaries and how far I can push myself, they helped me improve my organisational skills and made me a better team player. I think these are probably the real advantages of doing field trips, the actual content can probably also be learned in other ways. But the vast majority of the field trips also turned out to be lots of fun, even when you’re sitting in a tiny tent with two other students while it has been raining for the past 4 days and everything you own is completely wet and muddy, when you’re hiking through the mountains and your mapping partner is about 65% sure they’ve just heard what sounded like a wild boar behind you, or when you’re sweating and getting sunburned while trying to find your way back to the campsite in the spanish desert without any landmarks, there’s always something to laugh about and other people to help you out on when you think something too hard. Like that one time I managed to lose my field notebook at an outcrop and only noticed after a 90 minute hike to the next outcrop. I was already exhausted and really wasn’t looking forward to hiking back and forth again to get my notebook, but thanks to a friend volunteering to go with me, I managed to do it (that’s the day I learned to take a picture of every page of my notebook after every outcrop AND to save the pictures online as soon as possible).

I think it’s absolutely worth it, if you’re able to join field trips, I recommend you do it. 

I’d like to briefly discuss a different aspect about this though. All of the things I said are only true if you go with the right people. While I’ve not experienced too many negative situations during field trips myself, I’m aware that some people have not had a great time during field trips. For example, because the majority of geologists on this planet still consist of cis male people, who might not understand that menstruating or having to pee in the field can be a challenge for AFAB people, it might be difficult or embarrassing having to argue in front of the entire class that someone needs a break. Sometimes you also find out the hard way that the nice professor isn’t actually as nice as you thought when you have to spend 24h per day for an entire month with them instead of just attending their lecture for 2h every Tuesday morning. 

I’m still recommending everyone to join as many field trips as possible, but if you can, make sure there’s at least one person you already know and trust among the other participants. Having friends with you will make it a much better experience, in many ways.

Jen Bauer, attended as a graduate student with Ohio University 

I have an undergraduate degree in biological sciences and an earth science minor. The minor program did have a field component but it was only a week long trip to the Ozark area. This was  a nice precursor because I understood what a much longer version would entail. I completed my field camp during my MS program at Ohio University. It was my first summer and was run through Ohio University, so I didn’t have to apply for other programs. I could simply enroll in the course. At this time the course had two parts: (1) a two-week component that was focused near Athens, Ohio and in the nearby West Virginia mountains (this was meant to help us get accustomed with techniques in the field prior to being ‘released’ into the wild; and (2) a four-week component that was largely based at Yellowstone Bighorn Research Association. I completed this field course that summer and really enjoyed the experience at large. My biggest concern was being comfortable in the field and being able to keep up with my field partners. I trained regularly for a month in advance – cardio and weight training, which was certainly a little over the top. I had no trouble keeping up. I did not have the best field clothes due to not having money to purchase anything too expensive. This did not hinder me in the slightest. Since I went as a graduate student, my experience was a little different from those that attend as undergraduate students. I went in fully expecting full nights of rest and I worked hard so that I wouldn’t have to pull all nighters. I cannot function well on lack of sleep, let alone hike and map an area if I am exhausted. I made very conscious choices to be mindful of this. I still got my maps in on time and did very well in the course. My advice for folks heading to field camp would be to be confident in your abilities and know your weaknesses – you can’t be good at everything and it’s ok to lean on your field partner. Also, don’t forget to enjoy the experience. It’s a practical application of all of your knowledge up until that point. I had a lot of fun seeing structures and trying to infer them while drawing the maps. 

Maggie Limbeck, attended as a graduate student with the University of St. Andrews

My undergraduate institution (Allegheny College) did not require field camp for graduation because we were able to incorporate a lot of field trips/field work into our classes. All of my upper level courses either had weekend field trips around the area (Western Pennsylvania, Catskill Mountains in NY, West Virginia) or had multiple lab weeks that were designed around field work. We were also required to take a seminar course that had a week-long field trip to a further destination (my year went to Sapelo Island, GA), where we could really practice our geology skills as a capstone course. 

When I got to grad school, it was considered a deficiency that I had not been to field camp and I needed to go in order to graduate with my Master’s. I ended up going to Scotland for field camp and even though it was an international field camp it was priced similarly to attending one in the United States (read a previous post on Field Camp in Scotland). Because I was going to be doing field work in a chilly, wet climate I did spend a fair amount when purchasing a raincoat, rain pants, and boots to make certain I would stay dry and warm during long days in the rain. These purchases, while expensive, did keep me happy and dry as it rained for weeks while I was there! Going as a graduate student was an interesting experience because many of the other students bonded by staying up late working on their maps and/or going out to party – I on the other hand was working to make sure I could go to bed at a decent hour and be up early enough for breakfast and to make my lunch for the next day. Having an awareness of how you work best and function best is really beneficial because you are setting yourself up to be successful (and there are probably other students wanting to keep a similar schedule as you that you can work with!), but do make sure you do take advantage of some of these later nights, they are really help bond you to the other students and will make working with different groups of people a little easier. One other piece of advice: don’t be scared to speak to the instructor if you aren’t feeling well, are hurt, or need some adjustments made. We had a specific cooking group for those with dietary restrictions or preferences and those who were not feeling well for a day were given different activities to complete. It might be little things (in our case, my group hated the mustard that was being purchased for lunches!) but it’s important to talk to your instructor so you aren’t stuck in a situation that could potentially be dangerous for you!

Sarah Sheffield, attended as an undergraduate with Bighorn Basin Paleontological Institute

I went to UNC Chapel Hill, which does require a field camp for their geosciences B.S., but did not offer one themselves. So I went to field camp at the Bighorn Basin Paleontological Institute. I had to pay for out of state tuition for two credits (it was a two week program), which was expensive, but I gained a lot from the program. I flew to Montana and met the other participants, many of whom I still talk to a decade (!!!) later.  This field camp was unusual for a geoscience degree, in that there was no mapping or structural component. However, I did learn skills such as: locating potential fossil sites; jacketing vertebrate specimens; and vertebrate fossil identification, among other things. I enjoyed my time and highly recommend it if you have the opportunity! The major downside to field camp was cost: the tuition was difficult to cover, but it wasn’t the only consideration. I did not have access to good field gear, which meant that my time in the field was not as comfortable as it could have been (e.g., my shoes were not really appropriate for strenuous field work; good boots are arguably one of the most important pieces of gear for a field scientist!). See if you can find used, quality gear on sites like eBay, Craigslist, etc.-sometimes you can find gems for really reasonable prices! 

My M.S. institution did not originally count this field camp as a field credit, due to the lack of mapping and structural geology components. However, the department chose to waive the requirement in the end in order to not have a graduate student in their undergraduate field camp. My Ph.D. institution simply required that I do field work during my Ph.D., which I did in Sardinia, Italy during my second year there. I only mention this because my field camp at BBPI may not count at other institutions as a traditional field camp credit, so you’ll want to check with your institution.  

As a paleontologist, I find that I did not need a full field camp to become a successful geologist. My research takes place in both the field and in museums, with more of an emphasis on museums. As I write this, I have been unable to do field work for a few years due to a severe ankle injury, so I am grateful that the geosciences field is becoming more broad, so that more folks who may not be able to do field work for many reasons can do so! 

Kristina Barclay attended as an undergraduate with the University of Alberta

I took my undergraduate degree in Paleontology at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). I was required to take 3 field classes (1st and 2nd year geology, 4th year paleontology), and another one of my classes included a field trip (4th year paleobotany). I also took an invertebrate zoology class at Bodega Marine Lab (UC Davis) as a grad student, but as I was already working/living at the lab, I didn’t have to spend any extra money (other than tuition), but other students had to pay for lodging/meals. The 1st and 2nd year geology field camps I took at the U of A were 2 – 3 weeks tours across Alberta and B.C., mostly consisting of mapping exercises in the Rocky Mountains. Our paleo field schools were within the city, so we could go home every day, which was nice after a day of digging in the snow/mud in April! For the 1st and 2nd year field schools, we stayed in hotels or cabins. At the time, a lot of the costs were funded by oil and gas companies, so there weren’t too many extra expenses incurred by the students (other than tuition). That said, field gear is expensive, and as a 1st year, buying expensive waterproof notebooks, rock hammers, hand lenses, sturdy hiking boots, and field clothes was a little hard on the budget! Although, many years later, I still own and use a lot of those things, so some were very useful investments if you’re going to continue to do field work.

One thing I’d say is that it’s not worth buying the really expensive field clothes or rain gear because one tumble on rocks or rogue branch, and they get shredded. Field gear doesn’t need to be pretty or brand-named – I buy $10 rain pants because I know I’ll destroy them anyway (and I’ve had one of those pairs last me 10 years). The other challenge was that I paired with two men for the trip (we were marked as groups and stayed in the same cabins). They were good friends of mine and I was fortunate enough to trust them, but as a smaller woman, keeping up with them and finding a private spot to “go” outside was a little bit of a challenge! Thankfully, there were usually spots with trees, but I’ve done a lot of fieldwork with men where there was no cover, so trust is key. I tend not to drink coffee when I’m in the field and just stick to water to minimize unnecessary trips to the bathroom. You don’t want to short-change yourself on water in the field, though, so just make sure you are open and honest with your group about your bathroom needs (menstruating folx, especially). Field camps can be tiring, cold, and a pile of work, but they are absolutely awesome experiences and a chance to visit some amazing, remote places. They also gave me the confidence and experience to be able to conduct and lead independent field work in grad school, which might not be necessary for everyone, but is an important part of my research. Make sure to take lots of pictures and notes (good note taking is so important) and enjoy the experience!

Geosciences programs should drop the GRE, here’s why.

AdrianeLeave a comment

Adriane here-

For a few years now, there has been a debate raging in the science community: Should admissions at universities and colleges drop the requirement that students need to take the GRE for graduate schools? This is a conversation that has been steeped in inherent and implicit biases, data, and a gross misunderstanding of how standardized tests impact students. In this piece, I won’t go into details about how our own biases affect the decisions we make and opinions we form. Rather, the purpose of this post is to pull together the available data that show that the GRE is, in fact, an ineffective tool to predict the success of graduate students. To further this narrative, there are also personal stories from people who have taken the GRE included in this post.

Here is a list of US-based Geology/Geography programs that have dropped GRE.

The GRE

First, a bit of background about the GRE test. The GRE, which stands for Graduate Record Examinations, is a standardized test that students take who are applying for graduate schools, including law and business school. The GRE itself is created by ETS, a company that touts itself as creators of ‘some of the most well-known and widely used educational assessments in the world’. There are different types of GRE tests, called Subject Tests, depending on what the student wants to focus on as their career path: Biology, Chemistry, Literature in English, Mathematics, Physics, and Psychology. There is no subject test currently for the geosciences, so students who wish to pursue a graduate degree in this field just take the General Test. 

The General Test is broken down into 3 major categories: Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, and Analytical Writing. Each of these categories is supposed to test the student’s ability to draw conclusions from discourse and reasoning, summarize text, and distinguish major from minor points, measure the ability to understand, interpret, and analyze quantitative information, apply mathematical skills to problem-solve, and measure critical thinking and writing skills. These are just a few things the GRE is designed to measure, as stated on their website (https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/). 

To take the GRE test, there is, of course, a fee involved. The current prices to take the test as of July 1, 2020 are as follows:

Australia $230
China $231.30
India $213
Nigeria $226
Turkey $255
All other parts of the world $205

(All data from https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/fees/)

Students cannot take a GRE test anywhere. There are specific testing centers that distribute the GRE, and they do so about 3 times a year in September, October, and April for the United States, but can be variable depending on other countries. Often, the testing centers are located in larger cities, away from more rural areas. The test itself takes about 3 to 3.5 hours, and students are not allowed to bring any snacks or drinks into the testing center with them. These restrictions are variable and can be more or less strict depending on the testing center. 

After the student has taken the test, they receive part of their scores right away. The written portion of the exam is scored by a group of panelists who later give them the score on the written portion. The student then must immediately decide if they want to send those scores to the graduate schools they are applying to. The student doesn’t have to send their scores to any school if they don’t want to or feel like they need to retake the test. If you don’t send the scores at this time, it does cost extra to send them at a later time. Scores are reported on a scale from 130 to 170 in 1 point increments for the verbal reasoning and quantitative reasoning part of the exam, and from 0 to 6 in half point increments on the analytical writing portion.  

Although the student can choose to send their test results to multiple schools, it does cost an additional $27 to send scores to additional schools. As stated on ETS’ website, these requests for additional scores are not refundable, cannot be canceled, nor can they be changed. 

The Data

From the above section, it should be clear that the GRE test is serious business, as it costs quite a bit of money to take, takes a large amount of time, and is largely uncomfortable (seriously, no snacks?!?). The test is supposed to be an indicator of student success in graduate school, but there have been studies published that say otherwise. In addition, there are problems with the test, as it is not an equal predictor of success for men and women, nor among underrepresented groups. In this section, I’ll summarize some of those studies and their major findings.

The GRE as a Poor Predictor of Graduate Student Success

First, let’s start with the obvious assumption that the GRE test does predict success of upcoming graduate students. One of the earliest studies looking at the predictive power of the GRE was by Dunlap (1979). This study found that the best predictor a student success was the student’s performance on the basis of faculty interviews and undergraduate GPA. The GRE was a weak predictor of success. Dawes (1971) showed that GRE scores can be good predictors of grades and faculty evaluations, but only for first-year graduate students’ performance in psychology. Another study by Wood and Wong (1992) showed that the GRE, by itself, accounted for slightly less than 10% of the variation in the criteria of graduate performance against which the GRE was validated. This study also only looked at psychology students. A more recent assessment of student GRE scores as predictors of success in psychology departments was conducted by Sternberg and Williams (1997). These researchers at Yale University asked graduate student advisors to rate their graduate students on their analytical abilities, creative abilities, practical abilities, research abilities, and teaching abilities. The researchers also computed the students’ first-year, second year, and combined GPAs on a scale of 4 (high pass) to 0 (fail). Similar to the Dawes (1971) study, the data from Sternberg and Williams (1997) indicated that the GRE was a modest predictor of grades, but only for the students’ first year in graduate school. The GRE scores were not found to be useful in predicting other arenas of graduate performance, such as analytical, creative, practical, research, and teaching abilities.

Similarly, a study conducted by researchers looked at the predictive power of GRE scores in construction management programs in the United States. The study, conducted by Wao and others (2016) tried to correlate the success of graduate students (success meaning they finished their degree within two years and not drop out). They, too, found that the GRE scores were not correlated with graduate student success, and thus recommended that admissions committees should reassess requiring the GRE scores at all. 

Personal Stories & Experiences

In high school, I was not a great student, and did terrible in math classes (my high school math teacher once told me to get away from his desk when I asked for help because I was ruining the signal on the TV while he watched basketball, DURING CLASS). When it was time for me to take the GRE, I was already working 20-30 hours per week to put myself through community college and help my family with expenses. I had to take a day off of work, paid $200 for the exam, and had to drive 45 minutes to the nearest testing center. I was so nervous about taking the test, I sweat the entire time even though the room was chilly. At the end of my exam, my scores didn’t meet the minimum most graduate programs required (300 points). I ran to my car, crying, and called my mom telling her I had failed. I couldn’t really afford to take the test again, but I did so twice more. I received about the same scores all three times, but in the end, I was out over $600 that I needed for school and my family. Today, I’m a Postdoctoral Fellow, and have personally grown and accomplished so much during my short academic career. No, the GRE was not a predictor of my success, but rather highlighted the fact that I came from an area with subpar high schools and from a family with lower socio-economic status. 

–Adriane Lam, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Binghamton

I an above average high school student, I didn’t significantly apply myself because I was easily distracted and often bored in class. But I did my work, just not to the best of my ability. I never was a strong test taker, and didn’t have excellent ACT scores (25). I went on to a local public institution and really did awful my first year. I was NOT able to coast through like I did in high school. This means I bombed my first year of my undergraduate studies. I spent the next 4 years (I spent 5 as an undergraduate) working to raise my GPA. I graduated with a 2.86 GPA. I have to reiterate that I am a terrible test taker, I get so anxious, my study habits were variable and awful. I struggled. I didn’t know that I could even ask for help until the last few years when I found supportive mentors. I dreaded the GRE, I got workbooks, flashcards, and even recorded myself reciting definitions of terms so I could listen to myself on my commute to work and school. The testing center wouldn’t let me bring in tissues or chapstick and said I could either take in my sweater or I had to take it off because I couldn’t take it off in the testing center. These are all comfort items for me and I felt naked and uncomfortable heading into the testing center. I took the exam and I got an okay score, around 1200 (I took the old version). One of my mentors said I needed to take it again because that wasn’t competitive. So, regardless of the expense, I scheduled another test. I did worse. This was a waste of my time and money, neither of which I had an abundance of. Today, I am a collection manager at an established museum and research institution – regardless of my GPA or GRE scores, I managed to achieve my goals.

–Jen Bauer, Ph.D., University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology

My story is from applying to PhD programs in 2013, both involving schools in the top 10 Earth Science PhD programs. At one I was told by the PI I was waitlisted because of my scores (which I can only assume meant my GRE scores, my GPA was a 3.8), only to then be admitted 1 week before the decision deadline after others had declined and I had accepted elsewhere (which was rather embarrassing). I was later told by the (junior) PI that he seriously regretted waitlisting me, which was quite humiliating. The second program was told when I visited informally before applications were due that there was a ‘formula’ involving GPA, quant and writing score that was unofficially used. I was below the threshold, told to retake the GRE before applying, all while trying to finish my MS degree. Knowing there was a threshold I needed was incredibly stressful.

-Anonymous

I actually had a very positive experience with the GRE even if I’m not convinced of its utility as an application requirement overall. I’m also concerned about what standards are replacing it and how inequality is built in those too. Before applying to a geoscience grad program, I was nervous about “belonging” and being successful in the field. I didn’t do science undergrad, I was a little older, and black. Hitting the marks on my GRE helped reassure me that I was in fact qualified and belonged. I’m not sure how much my score actually factored in to my admission. Re the test itself, I bought an inexpensive test prep book (could have got it at library too), took it at a location walkable from my home, easy peasy. Test location was at an HBU so even that was encouraging. Largest drawback for me was the cost of the exam itself. That’s just one experience and if the data says the test is a useless barrier, then I trust the data. I always felt weaker in school on the quantitative side of things. The GRE wasn’t a class. It’s not math I’d apply in my field. It was a nut to crack, something to persevere and figure out. That’s something I do in my PhD, everyday. That’s how the GRE helped me feel ready.

-Shannon Valley

I went to undergrad on a full needs-based scholarship, because my family had no money to send me to college. I worked part time jobs, sometimes more than one during a semester, through all 4 years of college. I wanted to apply to grad school, and spent nearly a month’s pay signing up for the GRE. Unfortunately, in the weeks leading up to the GRE, my grandfather died quite unexpectedly and I ended up needing to reschedule it because my mother needed help cleaning out his house out of state. I had to pay an extra $50 to reschedule (which wasn’t easy to scrape up). It took me over an hour and a half by bus to get to the exam because they didn’t offer the test where I went to undergrad (they still don’t)-they offered it in a city a short distance away, but without a car, I had to rely on public transportation. This added a lot to the stress of the day, seeing as the exam started at 8AM. 

The amount of money it cost me to take this exam left me struggling to afford food, toiletries, and medical bills. I then had to figure out how to pay for the steep fees for the applications themselves. I didn’t know that you could send your scores for free *if* you did it the day you took the exam until I was already taking it. Because of that, I had to resend my scores after the exam for even more extra fees (I want to say $10 per school to send an email with my scores, but I can’t remember what the costs were back in 2010). 

I got into grad school (M.S.) with a relatively low score in the quantitative section. Frankly, between taking 5-6 classes, extracurricular activities, and working (my senior year, I taught a lab section of a course for pay, tutored athletes, and worked as an office assistant in a music department all at the same time), I didn’t have any time to study for the GRE. I used an old copy of the GRE study book from the library when I had a free hour or two, but I didn’t study as much as I could have if I hadn’t been working. 

 I took it again when I applied to a Ph.D. program- I only did this because a mentor of mine told me I’d never get into a Ph.D. program with my quantitative scores (I scored in the 99% in the qualitative/literature section,  but everyone said that didn’t matter in the STEM fields). I, again, had to spend just over two hundred dollars (my monthly take home pay as a student was around $850-$900/month, so this was tough to do, mind you). I had a car this time, but still had to drive an hour each way to take the test. This time, I was able to get a study book that I found from a thrift store and I was able to do a little bit better in quantitative, but not enough that it was worth the extreme stress I went through trying to figure out how to pay for the exam. Today, I’m an assistant professor at a university that has a significant number of low income students and the costs for the GRE have only gone up since I took it, while wages haven’t changed with those rising costs. I want to see a world where my students don’t have to forfeit time to study just so they can save up enough to take the test. 

 –Sarah Sheffield, Ph.D. The University of South Florida 

As someone who grew up taking standardized tests every year starting in 4th grade, I have always been a good standardized test taker, (other kinds of exams not so much, my test anxiety really didn’t start until my undergrad when I felt that my scores would really determine my future) so the idea of the GRE didn’t bother me. At the time, it very much just felt like another annoying step to be able to apply to graduate programs. However, since the exam wasn’t offered in the same city that my college was located in, I had to drive 40 minutes to the exam after my classes ended that day to sit in a freezing cold cubicle with noise cancelling headphones to block out the sound of anxious typing from all the other students taking the exam with me. 

One thing I did appreciate about the exam was knowing my quantitative and qualitative scores immediately after finishing the exam. I knew that my quantitative score would be my lowest (hello, math insecurities) but did hope that it would be a competitive score-an arbitrary number in my head that I had gotten from looking up “acceptable GRE scores for paleontology programs” on Google. My quantitative score was lower than what that number in my head was, but on my way out the door I made the decision that knowing how I test in math and how much better I would need to do to raise that score even a few points was not worth the stress and the $200 to retake the exam. I was 100% comfortable with this decision, but still nervous that my score might deter universities from accepting me for my Master’s. While the scores did not prevent me from being accepted into a Master’s program, I do think that they played a role in some of my rejections from PhD programs because they were schools with strict cut offs on GRE scores. However, I was accepted into a PhD program and have yet to see the need for anything I learned specifically to do well on the GRE. 

–Maggie Limbeck, PhD student, University of Tennessee

Additional Reading

Articles/Commentary

Peer-reviewed Literature & References Mentioned

Devonian of New York: Schoharie and the Helderberg Group

Adriane6 Comments

Adriane here–

When I was a PhD candidate at UMass Amherst, I was the teaching assistant for our geology department’s Historical Geology class. Every spring, weather permitting, we would take our students on a weekend field trip to upstate New York, to visit rock formations and outcrops that were of Ordovician to Devonian (~450 to 385 million years ago) age. These outcrops and rocks contain abundant fossils, but there was one outcrop in particular that I always found to be the most fascinating: the Middle Devonian rocks exposed near Schoharie, New York.

Now that I am a postdoc at Binghamton University, I’m only about 1.5 hours away from this incredibly cool outcrop! A few weekends ago, my husband and I decided to take a short road trip to go fossil collecting here, as it was the perfect activity to do during a pandemic (limited to no interactions with other people, ample outside time, but also close enough to home). Unfortunately the day was incredibly hot, and we were only able to stay for about half an hour before we felt as if we were roasting. Regardless, we brought home so cool finds, namely a slab of invertebrates, some brachipods, a horn coral, and a sponge!

The outcrop exposed near Schoharie is well-known to local fossil and mineral clubs and fossil enthusiasts. The location is secluded and quiet, there is a long and wide shoulder for parking, and the outcrop itself is set off the road a bit, which is great for students and kids! The outcrop itself is located on Rickard Hill Road, just east of the town of Schoharie.

Google Map of Schoharie, New York, with the location of the outcrop denoted by the yellow star.

The rocks here are part of the Helderberg Group, which are composed of limestones that were deposited in a shallow sea during the Middle Devonian. There are three rock formations that are present: the Coeymans Limestone, Kalkberg Limestone, and Becraft Limestone. The Coeymans Limestone is the oldest formation here. It is a medium to coarse grained limestone which is massively bedded, meaning the rock layers, or beds, themselves are quite thick. Fossils are present in this formation, however, because the formation is massively bedded, the fossils are hard to get out of the rock and are less easily eroded.

An image of the Rickard Hill Road outcrop. The Kalkberg Formation is the rock that makes up the slope of the outcrop which you can walk on and collect fossils. On the right side of the image, the small cliffs are mainly composed of the Becraft Limestone. Image from http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~kwilson/Devonian/DevSites/Schoharie/Schoharie.htm

The Kalkberg Formation lies above the Coeymans, and is described as a thin to medium bedded limestone. This means the individual rock layers within the formation are smaller and not as thick as those observed in the Coeymans Limestone. This formation also contains shale layers, a very fine-grained rock. This formation was likely deposited in a deeper-water setting than the Coeymans Limestone. Several different species and types of fossils are found in the Kalkberg, including animals such as corals, conularia, bryozoa, crinoides, brachiopods, trilobites (which are very rare), bivalves, gastropods, and even straight-shelled cephalopods. When you get out of you car at the outcrop, the Kalkberg Formation is what you are walking on!

 

My pentamerid brachiopod from the Becraft Formation. The lines visible on the surface are from glaciers that flowed across this brachiopod, which was cemented into the rock!

The Becraft Formation is the youngest of the three formations exposed at the Schoharie outcrop, and sits atop the Kalkberg Limestone. Similar to the Coeymans Limestone, the Becraft is a more massively bedded, coarse-grained limestone that was likely deposited in shallower waters than the Kalkberg Limestone. Because this formation is more resistant to weathering, it forms the small cliffs at the outcrop location. This formation contains fossils, but again, because it is more massively bedded, the fossils are not always as easily eroded out from the rocks. Other collectors have found fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, gastropods, and bivalves.

One of the things I absolutely love about the Becraft Formation is that it contains glacial striations at the top of the cliffs! Glacial striations are grooves left in rocks when the glaciers covered much of northern North American about 15,000–20,000 years ago. Striations are commonly found on metamorphic, sedimentary,and igneous rocks, and help geoscientists know which way the ice flowed. But that’s another fun story for later. One of my all-time favorite fossil finds came from the top of the Becraft Formation: a pentamerid brachiopod that was carefully sliced in half by glaciers, that contains glacial striations! The brachiopod was likely preserved as a whole specimen with two valves, much like a clam has two parts to its shell. The glaciers eroded just enough of the formation and brachiopod to cut it perfectly in half. Incredible!

A slab of limestone containing quite a few fossils, including brachiopods, bryozoa, and bivalves!

If you are in the area, I highly recommend stopping at the Rickards Hill Road outcrop and visiting the Helderberg Group. Collecting here is fun for all ages, is open to the public, and fossils are almost guaranteed 🙂

Additional Resources

Fossil digs in Upstate New York: 5 Good Places to Search
Lower Devonian Fossils near Schoharie, NY
USGS Helderberg Group 

 

 

 

 

 

Counting Deep Sea Sediments

AdrianeLeave a comment

Adriane here–

As paleontologists and paleoceanographers, sometimes the analyses we do involve complex equations, time-consuming geochemistry, or large amounts of computational time running models. But every now and then, we gather data using a method that is simple and fast. Today, I want to talk about one such method that I use quite often in my research. These data are called biogenic counts.

In previous posts, I’ve written about the deep-sea sediments I use in my research, such as sampling the cores we drilled from the Tasman Sea, and processing these samples once they are back in the lab. Each sample, which is stored in a small vial and represents 2 cm of the core (or 10 cubic cm of material), contain pieces of hard parts of plankton and animals, as well as minerals. These minerals and biogenic pieces, then, can tell us about our oceans and the life it held millions of years ago.

Biogenic count data is just that: I dump the sediment samples onto a tray and count the number of ‘things’ that are in that sample to determine the percentage of each ‘thing’ there. ‘Things’ in the sediment fall into a couple different categories: benthic foraminifera (foraminifera that live on the bottom of the seafloor), planktic foraminifera (foraminifera that float in the upper part of the water column in the open ocean), echinoderm spines (the hard parts of things like star fish and sea urchins), foraminifera fragments (pieces of foraminifera shell that are broken), sponge spicules (the hard parts of sponges that look like spiked glass), and I also make note of any minerals that are found in the sample. In one day, I do about 10 samples, which doesn’t seem like much but adds up everyday!

Below I’ll go  over the exact steps I take when performing biogenic counts:

A) An image of one of my jarred samples. B) The microsplitter used to split samples. Notice that the sample being poured in is split between the two cups on either side.

First, I take the jarred sediment and split the sample using a micro-splitter. A micro-splitter is a tiny contraption that equally ‘splits’ the sediment into two holders. Because each sample contains tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of particles, there’s no way we could count all of that! So instead, splitting the sample down to a reasonable number of particles allows us to more accurately and quickly count the number of particles in each sample, which we can then use to get a percent of each ‘thing’ (e.g., benthic foraminifera, fragment, echinoderm piece) in each sample.

Generally, I try to split the sample until about 300 particles remain in one of the cups. This can take splitting the sample anywhere between 3-9 times, depending on how much sediment is in each sample to begin with. Once I have the ~300 particles, I then sprinkle them evenly onto a picking tray (a metal tray with a grid on it). I then count the number of each ‘thing’ on the picking tray. I keep count of each ‘thing’ using a counter, which makes the process very fast and easy!

An image of my picking tray with the sample sprinkled on it. Some of the major components, or ‘things’, in the sediment are labeled. Most of them are planktic foraminifera, which can be very small or larger. There are a few benthic foraminifera, several fragments, and only one piece of an echinoderm spine. Generally, planktic foraminifera are most common in these samples.

Once I have this information, I then put them into a spreadsheet to plot the data. One thing I haven’t mentioned yet is, why we do this and gather the biogenic count data. It’s actually very useful! We can use the percentages of each ‘thing’ in the sediment to calculate the ratio of planktic to benthic foraminifera. This tells us something about dissolution, or if the bottom waters were corrosive and dissolved the fossils, as benthic foraminifera are a bit more resistant to this corrosion than planktic foraminifera. I also calculate the planktic fragmentation index, which is another ratio which also indicates dissolution (the more dissolved a foraminifera is, the easier it is to fragment).

Thus, the biogenic count data is a quick but extremely useful method to determine the percent of each ‘thing’ in a sample, which can be used to infer something about the corrosive nature of bottom waters, which in turn can tell us something about ocean circulation from millions of years ago!

 

 

 

Fossil Friday Chat

jenebauerLeave a comment

Jen & Adriane here – 

Not long ago we were invited to talk about Time Scavengers with our friends Gabe and Brittney who are staff at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology and the Western Science Center, respectively. Every Friday for the past few months Gabe and Brittney host two chats with folks about their research and educational projects! These discussions start with a brief presentation explaining science or projects or ideas to the audience as it is streamed live on Facebook. Then Brittney collects audience questions and we have a discussion at the end of the talk!

We talked about different aspects of Time Scavengers, most importantly the three foundations for which our site is built upon: Science Literacy, Science Identity, and IDEA+J (inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility, and justice). We also discussed briefly what we have done so far and what we would like to accomplish in the future! If you are interested in learning more please check out our slides by clicking here or watch the full presentation as it is still available on Facebook by clicking here. 

It can be tricky giving a talk with two people, but we made it work! We met a few times before our presentation date with Gabe and Brittney. The first few meetings were to outline the talk and decide on what information we wanted to share and how to structure that information. Then, we began to build the slides. This is always the fun part, as we get to look through our data and pick out fun graphics and images of ourselves and our team. Lastly, we went through and decided who would present which sections of the talk. Jen did the introduction, we both talked about our backgrounds, then Jen continued to discuss the more in-depth introduction slides and overview of Time Scavengers. Adriane then talked through the Science Literacy section, Jen the Science Identity section, then Adriane presented the IDEA+J section and our future goals slide. Lastly, Jen wrapped up the talk with our acknowledgements slide. We think this worked quite well, as we both were able to split the talking time. The questions our audience members asked were excellent, and really made us stop and think! We had a ton of fun throughout the entire process, and very much appreciate the opportunity Gabe and Brittney gave us to talk about Time Scavengers and share our love of science communication!

Gabe and Brittney have decided to keep doing these chats for the foreseeable future so please follow the Western Science Center and Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology on Facebook (names are linked) to get notifications!

Giving a Talk… In Ireland!

AdrianeLeave a comment

Adriane here,

Admittedly, the title of this post is a bit misleading; I didn’t actually go to Ireland to give a talk, in the midst of a pandemic. Rather, I was invited to discuss my research, path into science, and science communication by a graduate student, Luke O’Reilly, at the University College Cork through video conferencing software.

The University College Cork Wednesday Webinar banner

Luke recently began his journey into outreach by establishing a virtual seminar series for the graduate and undergraduate students and professors in his community, as a way to come together and continue learning about topics related to marine science. Luke’s endeavors have been highly successful; not only are those in academia participating, but also members of the general public! To date, about 300 people have signed up to tune into the talks! You too can sign up for this seminar series by clicking here.

Most of the talks to date have included folks presenting their research using figures and text on slides in a ‘traditional’ talk format. But Luke indicated that he wanted to do a more free-form format, to see how that worked with his audience. We both agreed that a lighthearted, off-the-cuff talk would be fun for us both, and we hoped this format helped our audience engage more with us and participate. Neither of us had done such a presentation in this format before.

The social media advertisement Luke made for my talk. He takes the time to craft one for each of his weekly speakers!

To prepare for this talk, I didn’t spend copious amounts of time making a slide show or modifying figures. Instead, I pulled up videos, images, Google Earth, and some slides from previous talks I’ve given. This way, I was able to screen share these resources with the audience when certain topics were touched upon. Personally, this format and style was really fun, kept me on my toes, and allowed me to share a lot of information pretty quickly. Luke indicated he received positive feedback about the talk format as well from audience members!

The topics we covered ranged all over the place, which was really fun! We began by just talking about living at sea for 2 months, and what that is like. I showed the audience a drill bit I had with me, and also showed a short video explaining how we conduct drilling in the middle of the ocean. Topics also then ranged from foraminifera and their ecology, the importance of the Kuroshio Current Extension to the Japanese fishing industry, how this massive current may change under human-induced warming, and we even touched on the topic of tectonics! Audience members asked questions throughout the talk via typing them into a chat box. Luke and I paused for questions throughout the talk, which really allowed for some more in-depth discussion of topics. We also had an additional Q & A session at the end of the presentation.

The cool thing about working in science communication is that I am always learning from other people, and this experience was no different. From experimenting with this talk format, I realized that mixing things up and doing something in a different way can be hugely successful. So take chances! Be bold! You never know how successful an endeavor will be until you try.

You can watch some of the recorded UCC Marine Geology Lectures here on YouTube!