08:53:02 From Cory Cleveland to Everyone: Good morning everyone! We are excited to kick off the second version of the INCyTE seminar. Thanks for joining. 08:53:59 From Cory Cleveland to Everyone: Please note that the best way to receive info about INCyTE activities is to join the network via the following link: https://www.umt.edu/incyte/participate/default.php 08:54:30 From Cory Cleveland to Everyone: Once you register, you will be added to a database that we use to generate our email list. 08:55:39 From Cory Cleveland to Everyone: We also advertise via Twitter (@IncyteRcn) and the INCyTE website: https://www.umt.edu/incyte/default.php 09:02:06 From Will Wieder to Everyone: Great to see so many great people! 09:02:13 From Duncan Menge (he/him) to Everyone: ^^ 09:02:19 From screed to Everyone: 🙂 09:03:12 From Verity Salmon (she/her) to Everyone: can you resend the links? 09:03:20 From Will Wieder to Everyone: https://www.umt.edu/incyte/participate/default.php 09:03:35 From Verity Salmon (she/her) to Everyone: thanks! 09:04:32 From Bharat to Everyone: Reacted to "https://www.umt.edu/..." with 👍 09:28:03 From Sönke Zaehle to Everyone: Hi Emma, would you be able to share these slides (spec. Those regarding to the experiment you plan). I would like to show them to a few German colleagues who run a regional biodiversity/ecosystem montoring network and have been collecting biogeochemical information that might be relevant here… 09:28:31 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: Good idea Sönke 09:29:00 From Josh Fisher to Everyone: Emma showed C-cycle changes to 2100 due to flexible C:N. How much of that is assumed to be flexibility within individual plants VS. a change in composition of demography within an ecosystem or PFT? 09:37:45 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: same comment for absorptive vs transport roots (within same individual). Big differences expected but not much data for this 09:37:47 From Christy Goodale to Everyone: Sapwood/heartwood important, but don't forget bark: its N pool is of comparable size as foliage and wood, and its handling can be, uh, somewhat murky in some models 09:38:08 From Barbara Bomfim to Everyone: This heartwood vs sapwood is non-trivial for tropical trees. We tried sampling like this but ended up having to combine everything as a single wood sample. For some species it could be possible if there are no restrictions about the possibility of killing a tree by having to dig many holes with the tenon cutter. 09:38:09 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." with ❤️ 09:38:13 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "same comment for abs..." with ❤️ 09:38:14 From Daniela Cusack to Everyone: I like Anthony's idea - could do 10 year intervals, maybe relate to CO2 fert and climate that way 09:38:19 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "I like Anthony's ide..." with ❤️ 09:38:24 From Christy Goodale to Everyone: Reacted to "same comment for abs..." with 👍 09:38:25 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "This heartwood vs sa..." with ❤️ 09:38:26 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: Reacted to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." with 👍 09:38:36 From Stephanie Freund to Everyone: Reacted to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." with ❤️ 09:38:41 From Stephanie Freund to Everyone: Reacted to "same comment for abs..." with ❤️ 09:38:48 From Verity Salmon (she/her) to Everyone: I would say the same for roots ... throwing first order fine roots in with higher order fine roots and coarse roots is akin to putting all the aboveground structures of a plant into an EA! Usually C:N increases with fine root order (https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.13363). Major caveat is that separating roots by order is a pain in the butt :) 09:38:55 From Verity Salmon (she/her) to Everyone: ie, ditto what rich said 09:39:12 From Daniela Cusack to Everyone: Reacted to "ie, ditto what rich ..." with 👍🏼 09:39:20 From Katrin to Everyone: Reacted to "I would say the same…" with ❤️ 09:39:27 From Josh Fisher to Everyone: Right, a big motivator of this study is in how ecosystems link to the rise in CO2 over the coming decades, but it’s not clear how we incorporate CO2 in this experiment. 09:39:30 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: Reacted to "I would say the same..." with 👍 09:39:56 From anthony walker to Everyone: Reacted to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." with 👍 09:40:28 From Christy Goodale to Everyone: Reacted to "I would say the same..." with 👍 09:41:26 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: @Lianhong. So true. How nice would it be to know which tissues have the most flexibility and which have the least 09:43:56 From anthony walker to Everyone: Replying to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." Wow! I didn’t know that, I guess I assumed bark was almost all carbon. Thanks 09:45:06 From anthony walker to Everyone: Replying to "This heartwood vs sa..." Or depth of the core could also work could also work 09:45:58 From Christy Goodale to Everyone: Replying to "Sapwood/heartwood im..." Ah, bark usually has several times the %N as wood! and yes: it seems particularly flexible in responding to nutrient additions 09:46:20 From Josh Fisher to Everyone: Related to Duncan’s question, do we need to control for LCLUC, disturbance, soil characteristics, altitude, etc. in the sample collection? 09:46:34 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: One idea would be to have two “experiments” working in parallel. One would be using the prescribed vertical sampling approach (strictly), the other using recycled samples? 09:46:49 From Tom Bytnerowicz to Everyone: Reacted to "One idea would be to..." with 👍 09:47:05 From Duncan Menge (he/him) to Everyone: I like that idea, Rich, and I also agree with what Daniela just said about combining observations only with existing experiments. 09:47:21 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Related to Duncan’s ..." with 👍 09:47:25 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "One idea would be to..." with 👍 09:47:28 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "I like that idea, Ri..." with 👍 09:47:51 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Or depth of the core..." with 👍 09:48:35 From Brooke Osborne (she/her) to Everyone: Comparisons with those grass studies will also be interesting in considering the consequences of woody expansion 09:48:43 From Tom Bytnerowicz to Everyone: Replying to "Related to Duncan’s ..." Neighbors may also matter a lot for soil stoichiometry below an individual. 09:49:52 From Debjani Sihi to Everyone: +1 to look at the understory component 09:49:56 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "+1 to look at the un..." with ❤️ 09:50:01 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Comparisons with tho..." with ❤️ 09:50:19 From Brooke Osborne (she/her) to Everyone: Replying to "Related to Duncan’s ..." Right also do we want strictly non cultivated individuals / controlling strictly for age/maturity 09:50:30 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: understory trees are easier to get leaves (and to identify roots back to individual) 09:50:41 From Brooke Osborne (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "understory trees are..." with 👍 09:50:42 From Aaron Hogan to Everyone: Reacted to "understory trees are..." with 👍 09:50:51 From Aaron Hogan to Everyone: Reacted to "Related to Duncan’s ..." with 👍 09:51:10 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "understory trees are..." with 👍 09:51:12 From Daniela Cusack to Everyone: Related to buy-in, is there any funding? For shipping, analyses, etc? Or is this part of what participants pay? 09:51:16 From Aaron Hogan to Everyone: Reacted to "@Lianhong. So true. ..." with 👍 09:51:34 From Grace Pold to Everyone: Replying to "+1 to look at the un..." +2! 09:51:42 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "+2!" with ❤️ 09:52:00 From Daniela Cusack to Everyone: Reacted to "I like that idea, Ri..." with ❤️ 09:52:41 From Grace Pold to Everyone: Reacted to "Related to buy-in, i..." with 👍 09:54:13 From Silvia Caldararu to Everyone: Sounds like we’re heading towards a modelling working group 09:54:26 From Sönke Zaehle to Everyone: Should be fairly easy for some of us to branch off the standard GCP/TRENDY runs to do ± flexible stoichiometry 09:54:27 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Sounds like we’re he..." with ❤️ 09:54:30 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with ❤️ 09:54:32 From Liyuan He to Everyone: Reacted to "Sounds like we’re he…" with ❤️ 09:54:36 From anthony walker to Everyone: Reacted to "Ah, bark usually has..." with 👍🏻 09:54:37 From Rich Phillips (he/him) to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with 👍 09:54:40 From Silvia Caldararu to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with 👍 09:54:50 From Bharat Sharma to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with 👍 09:54:53 From Liyuan He to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas…" with ❤️ 09:54:53 From siankougiesbrecht to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with 👍 09:54:54 From Katie Rocci to Everyone: NutNet keeps archived samples and also allows for specific sampling requests which might be a helpful thing for looking at more detailed analyses (different root groups, wood types, soil fractions) that one person could take on/lead if they were interested 09:54:58 From siankougiesbrecht to Everyone: Reacted to "Sounds like we’re he..." with ❤️ 09:55:04 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "NutNet keeps archive..." with 👍 09:55:12 From Grace Pold to Everyone: There are also some great “natural” resource gradients (ex. The betela gradient that the Högbergs often use) which have both changes in vegetation and nutrient availability so you can look at flexibility and turnover concurrently. And the communities at these sites are very well characterised. 09:56:10 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "There are also some ..." with ❤️ 09:57:03 From Katie Rocci to Everyone: Reacted to "Comparisons with tho..." with ❤️ 09:57:25 From Brooke Osborne (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "NutNet keeps archive..." with ❤️ 09:57:51 From anthony walker to Everyone: Sönke’s 2014 paper is a good starting point for seeing how models represent stoichiometric flexibility: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12697/abstract A key conclusion from this study was that models are often too flexible in response to eCO2. 09:57:54 From Josh Fisher to Everyone: Reacted to "Should be fairly eas..." with 👍 09:58:41 From Josh Fisher to Everyone: A related FYI- there are now coming online global high resolution canopy nitrogen maps from hyper spectral remote sensing. 09:58:47 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "A related FYI- there..." with ❤️ 09:58:50 From Sasha Reed (she/her) to Everyone: Reacted to "Sönke’s 2014 paper i..." with ❤️ 09:58:53 From Duncan Menge (he/him) to Everyone: Given the time constraint, I’ll put a comment in the chat. I’d like to make a pitch for what Daniela said a couple comments ago: to take advantage of existing samples from eCO2 and fertilization experiments. From a modeling perspective, we’re really interested in stoichiometric flexibility as conditions change, not just at a point in time, so I think it would be good to focus on the capacity for change. 09:58:53 From Tara Trammell to Everyone: Thank you! 09:58:56 From Aaron Hogan to Everyone: Reacted to "Sönke’s 2014 paper i..." with 👍 09:59:02 From Sönke Zaehle to Everyone: Reacted to "A related FYI- there..." with ❤️ 09:59:03 From Bharat Sharma to Everyone: Thank you@ 09:59:05 From Verity Salmon (she/her) to Everyone: this was a fun discussion! thanks 09:59:08 From Grace Pold to Everyone: Thanks! 09:59:08 From Katrin to Everyone: Reacted to "Given the time const…" with ❤️ 09:59:11 From Sönke Zaehle to Everyone: Reacted to "Given the time const..." with ❤️