Data Nugget ‣ Data Nuggets

3.17.14

Finding a Foothold

The activities are as follows:

Have you ever noticed that the ground at a beach has rocks of many different sizes? These rocks, sand, and dirt are all called substrates. The types of substrate we see are described by the size of the particles that cover the ground. These can range from large boulders down to fine grains of sand and dirt, with many sizes in between. No matter what type of substrate you see at the beach, you can find organisms that will live in or on it. Just like there are different types of substrates, there are different types of organisms that can live there. How can we determine which types of organisms prefer which types of substrates? That is the job of field researchers!

Students collecting mollusk data on different beach substrates.

Students and teachers at Kentridge High School have made many field trips to the beach and have seen lots of organisms. Normally, they just noticed what they could see easily in front of them. Students became interested to know how the type of substrate influences which organisms will live there. They noticed that the snails in the aquarium at school like to stick to the glass walls of the tank. Do snails and other shelled mollusks found near the ocean, like chitons, periwinkles, whelks and limpets, also like to live on large, stable substrates? The students went to beach to find out!

Mollusks have a “foot” which may be able to attach more securely to larger substrates, such as boulders, and allow them more room to move. So, the students expected to find more mollusks on boulders than on other types of substrates. To gather the data needed to answer this question, the students went to a local beach. They looked at sections of the beach with substrates of all types. On these different substrates, they kept track of all the different types of organisms that were present. They measured the frequency that they observed four types of mollusks (chitons, limpets, whelks, and periwinkles) on the following substrates: boulder, gravel, pebble, logs, sand, and shell debris. Frequency was measured as the proportion of times that a particular organism was present on a substrate type, out of the total number of observations. For example, if they observed 2 boulders and saw limpets on 1, the frequency would = ½ or 0.5.

Featured scientists: Darrel Nash and Sarah Hall from Kentridge High School, Washington

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 7.4

For more information on the Seattle Aquarium’s citizen science project, and to download the dataset from this project, click here.

1.21.14

Float down the Kalamazoo River

Morrow Lake, a reservoir created along the Kalamazoo River. The water is held in a reservoir by a dam. When water flows into the reservoir it slows, potentially letting some of the total suspended solids settle to the bottom of the river.

The activities are as follows:

Ever since she was a kid, rivers have fascinated Leila. One of her hobbies is to kayak and canoe down the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, near where she lives. For her work, she researches all the living things in the river and how humans affect them. She is especially interested in changes in the river food web, caused by humans building dams along the river, and an oil spill in 2010.

Leila knows there is a lot more in river water than what meets the eye! As the river flows, it picks up bits of dead plants, single-celled algae, and other living and nonliving particles from the bottom of the river. The mix of all these particles is called total suspended solids (TSS) because these particles are suspended in the river water as it flows. The food web in the Kalamazoo River depends on the particles that are floating in the water. Invertebrates eat decomposing leaves and algae, and fish eat the invertebrates.

Leila showing off some of the cool invertebrates that can be found in the Kalamazoo River.

As you float down the river, particles settle to the river bottom and new ones are picked up. The amount of suspended solids in a river is influenced by how fast the water in the river is flowing. The faster the water flows, the more particles are picked up and carried down the river. The slower the water flows, the more particles will settle to the bottom. Discharge is a measure of how fast water is flowing. You can think about discharge as the number of cubes (one foot on each side) filled with water that pass by a point every second. During certain times of the year, water flows faster and there is more discharge. In spring, when the snow starts melting, a lot of water drains from the land into the river. There also tends to be a lot more rain in the fall. Things humans build on the river can also affect discharge. For example, we build dams to generate hydroelectric power by capturing the energy from flowing water. Dams slow the flow of river water, and therefore they may cause some of the suspended solids to settle out of the water and onto the bottom of the river.

Leila wanted to test how a dam that was built on the Kalamazoo River influenced total suspended solids. If the dam is reducing the amount of total suspended solids, it could have negative effects on the food chain. She was also curious to see if the dam has different effects depending on the time of year. On eight different days from May to October in 2009, Leila measured total suspended solids at two locations along river. She collected water samples upstream of the dam, before the water enters the reservoir, and samples downstream after the water has been in the reservoir and passed over the dam. She also measured discharge downstream of the dam.

KalamazooRiver

Featured scientist: Leila Desotelle from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 8.7

If your students are looking for more information on how the amount of water flowing in the river affects the food chain and the health of the ecosystem overall, check out the video below!

A video in BioInteractive’s “Scientists at Work” series showing researchers working on the same questions in a different river system: Riverine Food Webs – How Flow Rates Affect Biomass

1.10.14

The ground has gas!

Measuring nitrogen (N2O) gas escaping from the soil in summer. Photo credit: Julie Doll, Michigan State University

The activities are as follows:

If you dig through soil, you’ll notice that soil is not hard like a rock, but contains many air pockets between soil grains. These spaces in the soil contain gases, which together are called the soil atmosphere. The soil atmosphere contains the same gases as the atmosphere that surrounds us above ground, but in different concentrations. It has the same amount of nitrogen, slightly less oxygen (O₂), 3-100 times more carbon dioxide (CO₂), and 5-30 times more nitrous oxide (N₂O, which is laughing gas!).

Measuring nitrogen (N2O) gas escaping from the soil in winter. Photo credit: Julie Doll Michigan State University.

Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are two greenhouse gasses responsible for much of the warming of global average temperatures. Sometimes soils give off, or emit, these greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere, adding to climate change. Currently scientists are working to figure out why soils emit different amounts of these greenhouse gasses.

During the summer of 2010, Iurii and his fellow researchers at Michigan State University studied nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from farm soils. They measured three things: (1) the concentration of nitrous oxide 25 centimeters below the soil’s surface (2) the amount of nitrous oxide leaving the soil (3) and the average temperature on the days that nitrous oxide was measured. The scientists reasoned that the amount of nitrous oxide entering the atmosphere is positively associated with how much nitrous oxide is in the soil and on the soil temperature.

Featured scientist: Iurii Shcherbak from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 9.2

More information on the research associated with this Data Nugget can be found here.

Data associated with this Data Nugget can be found on the MSU LTER website data tables under GLBRC Biofuel Cropping System Experiment. Bioenergy research classroom materials can be found here. More images can be found on the LTER website.

SaveSave

1.9.14

Fertilizing biofuels may cause release of greenhouse gasses

An aerial view of the experiment at MSU where biofuels are grown. Photo credit: K. Stepnitz, MSU

The activities are as follows:

Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, like carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O), trap heat from the sun and warm the earth. We need some greenhouse gases to keep the planet warm enough for life. But today, the majority (97%) of scientists agree that the levels of greenhouse gases are getting dangerously high and are causing changes in our climate that may be hard for us to adjust to.

Scientist Leilei collecting samples of gasses released by the growing of biofuels. Photo credit: K. Stepnitz, MSU

When we burn fuels to heat and cool our homes or power our cars we release greenhouse gasses. Most of the energy used today comes from fossil fuels. These energy sources are called “fossil” fuels because they come from plants, algae, and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago! After they died, their tissues were buried and slowly turned into coal, oil, and natural gas. An important fact about fossil fuels is that when we use them, they release CO₂ into our atmosphere that was stored millions of years ago. The release of this stored carbon is adding more and more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, and much faster than today’s plants and algae can remove during photosynthesis. In order to reduce the effects of climate change, we need to change the way we use energy and think of new ways to power our world.

One potential solution could be to grow our fuel instead of drilling for it. Biofuels are a potential substitute for fossil fuels. Biofuels, like fossil fuels, are made from the tissues of plants. The big difference is that they are made from plants that are alive and growing today. Unlike fossil fuels that emit CO₂, biofuel crops first remove CO₂ from the atmosphere as the plants grow and photosynthesize. When biofuels are burned for fuel, the CO₂ is emitted back into the atmosphere, balancing the total amount that was removed and released.

Scientists are interested in figuring out if biofuels make a good replacement for fossil fuels. It is still not clear if the plants that are used to produce biofuels are able to absorb enough CO₂ to offset all of the greenhouse gases that are emitted when biofuels are produced. Additional greenhouse gases are emitted when producing biofuels because it takes energy to plant, water, and harvest the crops, as well as to convert them into fuel. In order to maximize plant growth, many biofuel crops are fertilized by adding nitrogen (N) fertilizer to the soil. However, if there is too much nitrogen in the soil for the crops to take up, it may instead be released into the atmosphere as the gas nitrous oxide (N₂O). N₂O is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential nearly 300 times higher than CO₂! Global warming potential is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere.

Leilei is a scientist who researches whether biofuels make a good alternative to fossil fuels. He wondered what steps farmers could take to reduce the amount of N₂O released when growing biofuel crops. Leilei designed an experiment to determine how much N₂O is emitted when different amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are added to the soil. In other words, he wanted to know whether the amount of N₂O that is emitted into the atmosphere is associated with how much fertilizer is added to the field. To test this idea, he looked at fields of switchgrass, a perennial grass native to North America. Switchgrass is one of the most promising biofuel crops. The fields of switchgrass were first planted in 2008 as a part of a very large long-term study at the Kellogg Biological Station in southwest Michigan. The researchers set up eight fertilization treatments (0, 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 196 kg N ha⁻¹) in four replicate fields of switchgrass, for a total of 32 research plots. Leilei measured how much N₂O was released by the soil in the 32 research plots for many years. Here we have two years of Leilei’s data.

Featured scientist: Leilei Ruan from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 10.1

Additional teacher resources related to this Data Nugget:

Data related to this Data Nugget can be found on the MSU LTER website data tables under GLBRC Biofuel Cropping System Experiment. The data in this activity is the Trace Gas Fluxes from Static Chambers dataset which has N₂O, CO₂, and CH₄ data.
More information on LTER climate change research can be found here.
Bioenergy research classroom materials can be found here.
More images can be found on the LTER website.

SaveSave

1.9.14

Does a partner in crime make it easier to invade?

The invasive legume plant, hairy vetch, growing in the field.

The activities are as follows:

A mutualism is a relationship between individuals of two different species in which both partners benefit. One example exists between a type of plant, legumes, and a type of bacteria, rhizobia. Rhizobia live inside bumps on the roots of legumes, called nodules. There, they convert nitrogen from the air into a form that can be used by plants; in return, plants provide the rhizobia with food and protection in the root nodule.

Rhizobia nodules on plant roots. In exchange for carbon and protection in the nodules from plants, rhizobia provide fixed nitrogen for plants.

Mutualisms can affect what happens when a plant is moved to a location where that species hasn’t been before. Invasive plants have been transported by humans from one location to another and grow and spread quickly in their new location. For invasive legumes with rhizobia mutualists, there is a chance that the rhizobia will not be moved with it and the plant will have to form new relationships in the new location. These new partners might work well together or might not. Scientists predict that in their new ranges, invasive legumes will grow poorly at first, and then better and better over time. Over generations, invasive plants and their new rhizobia partners may coevolve to become more efficient mutualism partners.

Yi and Tomomi are scientists who tested this hypothesis using one invasive plant species, hairy vetch. They took soil samples from three different spots based on the invasion history: vetch had never been there (no invasion, 0 years), vetch arrived recently (new invasion, less than 3 years), and vetch invaded a long time ago (old invasion, more than 10 years). These soils had rhizobia in them, each with different histories with hairy vetch. Yi and Tomomi took these soils into the greenhouse, divided them into pots, and grew several hairy vetch plants in each soil type. When the plants had grown for some time in the soils, Yi and Tomomi dug them up and measured two things. First, they counted number of nodules on the roots of each plant, which is a way to see how well the mutualism between rhizobia and plants is going. Second, they dried and weighed the plants to measure biomass, which shows how much the plants were growing.

Featured scientists: REU Yi Liu and Tomomi Suwa from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 8.2

If you are interested in performing your own classroom experiment using the plant-rhizobium mutualism, check out this paper published in the American Biology Teacher describing methods and a proposed experimental design: Suwa and Williamson 2014

1.8.14

Fair traders or freeloaders?

Measuring chlorophyll content in the greenhouse

The activities are as follows:

When two species do better when they cooperate than they would on their own, the relationship is called a mutualism. One example of a mutualism is the relationship between a type of bacteria, rhizobia, and legume plants. Legumes include plants like peas, beans, soybeans, and clover. Rhizobia live in bumps on the legume roots, where they trade their nitrogen for sugar from the plants. Rhizobia fix nitrogen from the air into a form that plants can use. This means that legumes that have rhizobia living in their roots can get more nitrogen than those that don’t.

Under some conditions, this mutualism can break down. For example, if one of the traded resources is very abundant in the environment. When the plant doesn’t need the nitrogen traded by rhizobia, it doesn’t trade as many sugars to the rhizobia. This could cause the rhizobia to evolve to be less cooperative as well. Less-cooperative rhizobia may be found where the soil already has lots of nitrogen. These less-cooperative bacteria are freeloaders: they fix less nitrogen, but still get sugars from the plant and other benefits of living in nodules on their roots.

Rhizobia nodules on plant roots. In exchange for carbon and protection in the nodules from plants, rhizobia provide fixed nitrogen for plants.

One very important legume crop species is the soybean. Soybeans are used to produce vegetable oil, tofu, soymilk, and many other food products. Soybeans trade with rhizobia for nitrogen, but often farmers add more nitrogen into the field as fertilizer. Since farms use a lot of nitrogen fertilizer, researchers at KBS were interested in how different types of farming affected the plant-rhizobia mutualism.

They grew soybean plants in a greenhouse and added rhizobia from three different farms: a high N farm, low N farm, and organic farm that used no N fertilizer. After four weeks, the researchers measured chlorophyll content of the soybean plants. Healthy plants that have lots of nitrogen will have high chlorophyll content, and plants with not enough nitrogen will have low chlorophyll content. Because high nitrogen could lead to the evolution of less-cooperative rhizobia, they expected that rhizobia from organic plots would be most cooperative. They predicted rhizobia from high N plots would be the least cooperative, and rhizobia from low N plots would fall somewhere in the middle. More-cooperative rhizobia provide more nitrogen, so the researchers expected plants grown with cooperative rhizobia to have higher chlorophyll content than plants receiving less-cooperative rhizobia.

Featured scientist: REU Jennifer Schmidt from the Kellogg Biological Station

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 10.1

For more information on the evolution of cheating rhizobia, check out these popular science articles:

SaveSave

1.7.14

Cheaters in nature – when is a mutualism not a mutualism?

The activities are as follows:

Mutualisms are a special type of relationship in nature where two species work together and both benefit. Each partner trades with the other species, giving a resource and getting one in return. This cooperation leads to partner species doing better when the other is around, and without their partner, each species would have a harder time getting resources.

One important mutualism is between clover, a type of plant, and rhizobia, a type of bacteria. Rhizobia live in small bumps on the clovers’ roots, called nodules, and receive protection and sugar food from the plant. In return, the rhizobia trade nitrogen to the plant, which plants need to photosynthesize and make new DNA. This mutualism works well when soil nitrogen is rare, because it is hard for the plant to collect enough nitrogen on its own, and the plant must rely on rhizobia to get all the nitrogen it needs. But what happens when humans change the game by fertilizing the soil? When nitrogen is no longer rare, will one partner begin to cheat and no longer act as a mutualist?

Worldwide, the nitrogen cycle is off. Not that long ago, before farmers used industrial fertilizers and people burned fossil fuels, nitrogen was rare in the soil. Today, humans are adding large amounts of nitrogen to soils. The nitrogen that we apply to agricultural fields doesn’t stay on those fields, and nitrogen added to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels doesn’t stay by the power plant that generates it. The result is that today, more and more plants have all the nitrogen they need. With high nitrogen, plants may no longer depend on rhizobia to help them get nitrogen. This may cause the plant to trade less with the rhizobia in high nitrogen areas. In response, rhizobia from high nitrogen areas may evolve to try harder to get food from the plant, and may even cheat and become parasitic to plants. If this happens, both species will no longer be acting as mutualists.

When Iniyan was a college student, he wanted to study human impacts on the clover-rhizobia mutualism. To find out more, he contacted Jen Lau’s lab at the Kellogg Biological Station one summer, and joined a team of scientists asking these questions. For his own experiment, Iniyan chose two common species of clover: hybrid clover (Trifolium hybridum) and white clover (Trifolium pretense). He chose these two species because they are often planted by farmers. Iniyan then went out and collected rhizobia from farms where nitrogen had been added in large amounts for many years, and other farms where no nitrogen had been added.

Iniyan completed this research as an REU at KBS.

To make sure that there were no rhizobia already in the soil, Iniyan set up his experiment in a field where no clover had grown before. He then planted 45 individuals of each species in the field. He randomly assigned each plant to one of three treatments. For each species, he grew 15 individuals with rhizobia from high nitrogen farms, and 15 with rhizobia from low nitrogen farms. To serve as a control, he grew the remaining 15 individuals without any rhizobia. To add rhizobia to the plants he made two different mixtures. The first was a mix of rhizobia from high nitrogen farms and water, and the second was a mix of rhizobia from low nitrogen farms and water. He then poured one of these mixtures over each of the plants, depending on which rhizobia treatment they were in. The control plants just got water. No nitrogen was added to the plants.

After the plants grew all summer, Iniyan counted the number of leaves and measured the shoot height (cm) for each individual plant. He did not collect biomass because he wanted to let the plants continue to grow. He then averaged the data from each set of 15 individuals. Plants with fewer leaves and shorter shoots are considered less healthy. He predicted rhizobia that evolved in high nitrogen soils would be worse mutualists to plants, while rhizobia that evolved in low nitrogen soils would be good mutualists.

Featured scientist: REU (NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates) Iniyan Ganesan from the Kellogg Biological Station

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 9.5

For more information on the evolution of cheating rhizobia, check out these popular science articles:

1.7.14

Dangerously bold

An aquarium filled with young bluegill sunfish. Bluegills are a common type of fish that live in freshwater lakes in the eastern United States.

The activities are as follows:

Just as each person has her or his own personality, animals of the same species can behave very differently from one another! For example, pets, like dogs, have different personalities. Some have a lot of energy, some are cuddly, and some like to be alone. Boldness is a recognized behavior that describes whether or not an individual takes risks. Bold individuals take risks while shy individuals do not. The risks animals take have a big impact on their survival and the habitats they choose to search for food.

Bluegill sunfish are a type of fish that lives in freshwater lakes and ponds across the world. Open water and cover are two habitat types where young bluegill are found. The open water habitat in the center of the pond is the best place for bluegill to eat a lot of food. However, the open water is risky and has very few plants or other places to hide. Predators, like large birds, can easily find and eat bluegill in the open water. The cover habitat at the edge of the pond has many plants and places to hide from predators, but it has less food that is best for bluegill to grow fast. Both habitats have costs and benefits—called a tradeoff.

To determine their personality, Melissa observed bluegill sunfish in the aquarium lab.

Melissa is a scientist who is interested in whether differences in young bluegill behavior changes the habitats in which they choose to search for food. First, she looked at whether young bluegill have different personalities by bringing them into an aquarium lab and watching their behavior. Melissa observed that, just like in humans and dogs, bluegill sunfish have different personalities. She noticed that some bluegill took more risks and were bolder than others. Melissa wanted to know if these differences in behavior could also be observed in her experimental pond. She reasoned that being in open water is risky, but results in more access to food. Therefore, bold fish should take more risks and use the open water habitat more than shy fish, giving them more food, allowing them to grow faster and larger, but exposing them to more predation. Just the opposite should be true about shy fish: more time for them in the cover habitat of the pond exposing them to less predation, but also giving them less access to food and an overall smaller body size than bold fish. A tradeoff for both types of fish based on personality.

Melissa designed a study to test the growth and survival of bold and shy fish. When she was watching the fish’s behavior in the lab, she determined if a fish was bold or shy. If a fish took the risk of leaving the safety of the vegetation in a tank so that it could eat food while there was a predator behind a mesh screen, it was called bold. If it did not eat, it was called shy. She marked each fish by clipping the right fin if it was bold or the left fin if it was shy. She placed 100 bold and 100 shy bluegill into an experimental pond with two largemouth bass (predators). The shy and bold fish started the experiment at similar lengths and weights. After two months, she drained the pond and found every bluegill that survived. She recorded whether each fish that survived was bold or shy and measured their growth (length and weight).

Featured scientist: Melissa Kjelvik from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 7.3

A view of the aquarium tank used to determine fish personality. A largemouth bass is placed to the left of the barrier, while 3 bluegill sunfish are placed to the right. If a sunfish swims out of the vegetation and eats a bloodworm dropped near the predator, it is considered bold.

SaveSave

1.6.14

Do invasive species escape their enemies?

One of the invasive plants found in the experiment, Dianthus armeria

The activities are as follows:

Invasive species, like zebra mussels and garlic mustard, are species that have been introduced by humans to a new area. Where they invade they cause harm. For example, invasive species outcompete native species and reduce diversity, damage habitats, and interfere with human interests. Damage from invasive species costs the United States over $100 billion per year.

Scientists want to know, what makes an invasive species become such a problem once it is introduced? Is there something that is different for an invasive species compared to native species that have not been moved to a new area? Many things change for an invasive species when it is introduced somewhere new. For example, a plant that is moved across oceans may not bring enemies (like disease, predators, and herbivores) along for the ride. Now that the plant is in a new area with no enemies, it may do very well and become invasive.

Scientists at Michigan State University wanted to test whether invasive species are successful because they have escaped their enemies. They predicted invasive species would get less damage from enemies, compared to native species that still live near to their enemies. If native plants have tons of insects that can eat them, while an invasive plant has few or none, this would support enemy escape explaining invasiveness. However, if researchers find that native and invasive species have the same levels of herbivory, this would no support enemy escape. To test this hypothesis, a lab collected data on invasive and native plant species in Kalamazoo County. They measured how many insects were found on each species of plant, and the percent of leaves that had been damaged by insect herbivores. The data they collected is found below and can be used to test whether invasive plants are successful because they get less damage from insects compared to native plants.

Featured scientist: Elizabeth Schultheis from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 11.3

For a lesson plan on the Enemy Release Hypothesis, click here.
The Denver Museum of Nature and Science has a short video giving background on invasive species, here.

1.6.14

Do insects prefer local or foreign foods?

One of the invasive plants found in the experiment, Centaurea stoebe.

The activities are as follows:

Insects that feed on plants, called herbivores, can have big effects on how plants grow. Herbivory can change the size and shape of plants, the number of flowers and seeds, and even which plant species can survive in a habitat. A plant with leaves eaten by insect herbivores will likely do worse than a plant that is not eaten.

Plants that naturally grow in an area without human interference are called native plants. When a plant is moved by humans to a new area and lives and grows outside of its natural range, it is called an exotic plant. Sometimes exotic plants become invasive, meaning they grow large and fast, take over habitats, and push out native species. What determines if an exotic species will become invasive? Scientists are very interested in this question. Understanding what makes a species become invasive could help control invasions already underway and prevent new ones in the future.

Because herbivory affects how big and fast a plant can grow, local herbivores may determine if an exotic plant thrives in its new habitat and becomes invasive. Elizabeth, a plant biologist, is fascinated by invasive species and wanted to know why they are able to grow bigger and faster than native and other exotic species. One possibility, she thought, is that invasive species are not recognized by the local insect herbivores as good food sources and thus get less damage from the insects. Escaping herbivory could allow invasive species to grow more and may explain how they become invasive.

To test this hypothesis, Elizabeth planted 25 native, 25 exotic, and 11 invasive species in a field in Michigan. This field was already full of many plants and had many insect herbivores. The experimental plants grew from 2011 to 2013. Each year, Elizabeth measured herbivory on 10 individuals of each of the 61 species, for a total of 610 plants. To measure herbivory, she looked at the leaves on each plant and determined how much of each leaf was eaten by herbivores. She then compared the area that was eaten to the total area of the leaf and calculated the proportion leaf area eaten by herbivores. Elizabeth predicted that invasive species would have a lower proportion of leaf area eaten compared to native and noninvasive exotic plants.

Featured scientist: Elizabeth Schultheis from Michigan State University

Flesch–Kincaid Reading Grade Level = 10.9

There is one scientific paper associated with the data in this Data Nugget. The citation and PDF of the paper is below, as well as a link to access the full dataset from the study:

Schultheis, E.H., A.E. Berardi, and J.A. Lau (2015). No release for the wicked: enemy release is dynamic and not associated with invasiveness. Ecology 96(9) 2446-2457.

Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository

For two lesson plans covering the Enemy Release Hypothesis, click here and here.

Aerial view of the experiments discussed in this activity:

SaveSave