UPDATE BIOMASS: Uffe Nielsen's sites (Broken Hill, Charleville, Cobar, Milparinka, Nyngan, Quilpie) 2017-2019

[KW529]

Message from Uffe (6-23-2020):

"Hi Kate

All good here – still working from home and will be for the foreseeable future, but hopeful that we can get in the field by August and continue our work in the outback.

Finally starting to find a new routine (fewer Zoom meetings to put out fires…) and have revised the biomass data (attached) for the first year so that it is hopefully in a more useful format for your analyses. I’d use the data in the spreadsheet for all the sites.

There are two worksheets – one for standing biomass (assessed allometrically) and one for NPP after 6 and 12 months (given in increments for 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and 0-12 months). This is calculated as growth of individual species relative to the previous sampling date. We only have standing biomass for the baseline in September/October 2016 and can’t calculate NPP relative to previous time points.

Note that one column is for total biomass and the remaining for species level (I’ve added a header to indicate that).

The soil data are from 2016.

Let me know if you need anything else and hope you’re all well in Co."

[KW529]

Updated

[KW529]

Sent 7-10-2020:

Hi Uffe,

So, if I understand correctly, there shouldn't be any ANPP values for 2016 since this is just standing biomass that you use to calculate NPP in subsequent years. Thus, the ANPP data is just for 2017, 2018, and 2019, correct?

Best,

Kate

[KW529]

Hi Kate

Correct – only standing biomass for 2016 so we can’t get a good measure of preceding NPP (but it would have been high relative to the long term average and the following yeas as 2016 was really wet).

Best,

Uffe

[KW529]

7-28-2020: Hi Melinda and Kate

Data from our 6 outback sites attached.

One spreadsheet includes standing biomass for our first four years (2016 = baseline, 2019 = three years of drought) and estimated ANPP for 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 based on turnover across the year. Note that the first column is total biomass, the others are species level. Biomass is g/m2. The other spreadsheet is the weather data for the sites for your convenience.

There has been below-average rainfall across 2017-19 so even the ‘ambient’ plots are effectively droughted but guess that’s ecology for you.

Super frustrating that we haven’t been able to get out this year as the sites have seen more rainfall and it’d be more likely that we’d pick up the rainfall treatment effects. The border to Queensland has just closed again so it won’t happen any time soon.

Hope all is well in Fort Collins.

Uffe

[KW529]

Reformatted new data (2016-2019) to long format and used the End.date as final date for anpp and year as follows since 2016 is reference year that represents standing biomass: 2016-2017: 2017 2017-2018: 2018 2018-2019: 2019

Reformatting located here: Dropbox\IDE_data_May 2018\Uffe-Sites-Formatting\UffeAllSites_long.csv

Removed zeros from data and Total.NPP because Total.NPP is sum of all ANPP from all species. Prefer species-level biomass to get functional group

[KW529]

Hi Uffe,

Do Milparinka and Quilpie have 2018 biomass data? Also, while I have 3 years of biomass across most of your sites, we only have cover for 2016 and 2017 across all sites. Do you have any updates on the cover data? Also, do you potentially have the 4th year of anpp data?

Thanks so much, and I hope all is well!

Best, Kate Wilkins

[KW529]

Hi Kate

Yep, all’s pretty well here. Not bad being ‘stuck’ here given the situation is much better locally than pretty much anywhere else Covid-wise at least. Hope things are going well up north. At least it seems much quieter and positive with the recent political changes…

The spreadsheet attached has total biomass and biomass per species for all our sampling points from 2016 through 2019. It does include data for Milparinka and Quilpie for 2018 but only for our spring timepoint (which I’d suggest you focus on given that autumn is usually much more limited).

But, note that there simply weren’t any vegetation at either Milparinka or Quilpie in spring 2018 – which is probably why you’re missing them… 2017 and 2018 were really dry, and most of the NSW Outback was completely devoid of vegetation so it’s just a reflection of the local conditions. But, hopefully the weather data can help account for that.

Yep, I can provide cover as well if you’re using that for other analyses.

We’re updating our 2020 estimates at the moment so you can get the most recent data in a few weeks’ time if that works for your timeline?

(hint – we saw better rainfall and therefore recovery of vegetation and – low and behold – treatment effects at most of our sites.

Best,

Uffe

[KW529]

Sent 01-09-2022: Hi Kate (and Melinda)

Updated spreadsheet attached – note again that there are many zeros for anpp (presented in the new tab per species as per our previous chat) so some time points have no data in the long format.

Total ANPP would simply be the sum of anpp per species per plot per date.

Spring 2016 would represent pre-treatment and isn’t currently in the anpp tab (just a matter of copy-pasting those in if that’s desired though).

Happy Holidays to both of you. Just back in office after an extended break – hope you got some time off.

Best,

Uffe

[KW529]

02-08-2022:

Hi Uffe,

 

I now have a question on the reformatted ANPP data you sent. Originally, the Broken Hill site in plot 1, below and attached), you submitted ANPP for Sclerolaena diacantha. 

 

Previously submitted data:

site | block | plot | subplot | taxa | mass | date -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- Broken Hill |   | 1 |   | Sclerolaena.diacantha | 5.1614 | 10/19/2017

 

However, in the updated data, Sclerolaena diacantha is now missing from plot 1 for Broken Hill on 10/19/2017. Would you mind reviewing the reformatted data (attached) to make sure nothing was lost in the reformatting process? Thanks!

Best,

 

Kate Wilkins

[KW529]

02-14-2022: Hi Kate

The data in the current spreadsheets look correct. There is Sclerolaena in that particular plot but no change in standing biomass between autumn and spring so no ANPP measured as turnover.

Best,

Uffe

[KW529]

Hi Uffe,

Just to make sure we're on the same page, the original ANPP estimates you sent for all your sites last year (March 14, 2021; see attached) are incorrect, and I should update them with the new data you sent in January 9, 2022?

Best,

Kate Wilkins

[KW529]

Hi Kate Yep, use the latest version. That's what we are working with. Best, Uffe

[KW529]

Other comments/questions (original email referred to cover data, but he answers with info relevant to biomass):

Hi Kate

Sorry, just back in ‘office’ after a bit of travelling (finally had the opportunity to get interstate but now in lockdown yet again, how quick things change).

We’ve been struggling a bit with the same issues and two of my students are working on how to best handle it for our main data series – don’t think there’s a clear best way (depend a bit what you want from the data).

The main issue is that our sites are all drylands and strongly pulse driven so that there can be multiple productivity events in a given year. This makes it quite difficult to get accurate ANPP data without measurements at high frequency to measure turnover which we couldn’t do from a logistical point of view.

For your analyses, I see two options:

· Simply focus on one time point per year (I’d suggest spring – i.e. September – November ‘ish where production / standing biomass is generally higher) and then relate this to the rainfall over a set time period prior to the date of sampling (our analyses suggest that a 2-3 month timescale provide a strong rainfall-biomass relationship).

· Use the higher value as an indicator of maximal biomass of a given year (but not quite sure how you’ll relate that to rainfall).

For the particular species you’ve highlighted – this is a shrub that will set leaves / flower when it rains and then ‘die back’ until the next episode. From the data you’ve picked I’d expect that there was reasonable rainfall prior to the April time point but less so before the October one.

As mentioned we’re in the process of analysing the data series ourselves and I’ll let you know what we get out of that as it might provide some additional insight into how to interpret / handle the data / results.

Hope things are well on your end.

Best,

Uffe

[KW529]

From Kate (02-02-2022):

Hi Uffe,

Thanks again for resubmitting your data. I have a quick question on the cover data for Milparinka. In the cover table, you list Sida species, but your taxa table lists Sida petrophila and Sida corrugata. Is the Sida species in the cover table one of these?

Best, Kate

From Uffe (02-02-2022):

Hi Kate

See attached for provenances.

For the Sida at Milparinka – would have been a poor specimen not possible to ID. Best guess would be Sida petrophila which is the species found at the closest and most similar site climatically. But, it’d be a guess.

Best,

Uffe