Explore NABS

in the drift: Fall 2014

     

Issue 20, Fall 2014

Dear Society for Freshwater Science,

We are at issue #20 of the SFS newsletter, and this one breaks the record for sheer amount of content. But don’t let that deter you! The content includes two all-new types of columns, plus a ton of photos (mostly by Mark Wetzel) from JASM 2014 in Portland. You are not going to want to miss any of this awesome stuff!

The first of our new columns is called “Kim’s Cash-Flow Corner” and is courtesy of Kim Haag, chair of the SFS Finance Committee. It is possible that she simply got sick of nobody knowing a thing about the financial operations of our society, it could be that all of our complaining about dues got to her, or maybe even it’s simply that very few of us actually read through the quarterly financial reports provided to the Board of Directors (and freely available to the membership on the SFS website). At any rate, Kim’s new column is going to solve all of that with short, easily digestible snippets about what is going on with the society’s cash flow. Her first one is about what happens with those dues you pay.

The second new item is called the “ITD Q&A”. For it, we find an SFS member who’s done something cool in freshwater science lately, and we ask them a series of questions about how it went. We list the questions and the candid answers for all to read. Joe Giersch got to be on NPR a few weeks ago, and he’s our first ITD Q&A interviewee. Do you know someone we should interview? Let us know!

Of course, as is now tradition, the final segment of the Fall newsletter contains the “Meeting Recap”, this time from JASM. It is missing the photo contest winner because there was no photo contest this year – but it will return next year, or so we hear and hope.

Happy Fall (or Spring if you are down under), and please do keep in touch with any comments, suggestions, and heads-ups about SFS-ters with newsworthy items!

FPOM

Short SFS notes and quick links collected from "the drift"

Articles

Freshwater Science Article Spotlight:

Allow us to introduce the "Gloeo Gang".

Carey, Weathers, Ewing, Greer, Cottingham, Issue 33(2) pages 577-592.

Why in the world are cyanobacteria blooming in an oligotrophic lake? Back in 2005, when spotlighted author Cayelan Carey was developing her undergrad thesis project at Dartmouth College (New Hampshire, USA), she had no idea that ten years later this question would have resulted in a dedicated long-term project and a group of scientists and students that has evolved, in Cayelan’s terms, into “something much larger and more meaningful than just a research collaboration”. This entity that is beyond “just” a collaboration now refers to itself as the “Gloeo Gang”, in honor of Gloeotrichia echinulata, the culprit species in the cyanobacterial blooms.

Gloeotrichia. (photo: Cayelan Carey)


In the first of a series of serendipitous events leading to today’s Gloeo Gang, an undergraduate Cayelan contacted the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA, lakesunapee.org), a nonprofit watershed group of energetic citizen scientists with a keen interest in their home lake (Sunapee) in New Hampshire. For her thesis project, Cayelan was interested in analyzing long-term water quality data the LSPA had been collecting. But her interests would quickly move to Gloeotrichia. At the time, co-author Kathleen Weathers, based at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, was working with the LSPA on a sabbatical project on watershed-level nutrient cycling. She suggested that Cayelan instead pursue the question of why novel and unexpected cyanobacterial blooms were occurring in the low-nutrient lake.

Cayelan enthusiastically agreed, and so began the Gloeo Gang from just three initial collaborators (including herself, her undergrad adviser Kathy Cottingham, and Kathleen Weathers). The three published a paper together in the Journal of Plankton Research, covering results from that first summer of 2005 and speculating that recruitment from dormant stages (the “seed bank”) of Gloeotrichia in the lakebed sediments during seasonal mixing might play an important role in the blooms.

Most of the core of the Gloeo Gang, during one of their recent “Gloeo Summits”; i.e., approximately twice-per-year in-person meetings. Left to right: the Lake Sunapee buoy (which collects high-frequency data for various analyses), Meredith Greer, Kathy Cottingham, Holly Ewing, and Cayelan Carey.  (photo by “Gang” member Kathie Weathers)


But they couldn’t help but wonder: How repeatable was this single-season study from one year to the next in Lake Sunapee? And: What was going on in other oligotrophic lakes in the region? [And furthermore, we suspect after finding out more about the Gloeo Gang: How can we continue our fun and well-functioning collaborative research?] As Cayelan moved from undergrad to grad to postdoc to [now] assistant professor, the Gloeo Gang grew in scope and in size to include the other co-authors on the spotlighted article (Holly Ewing and Meredith Greer from Bates College), as well as a number of student researchers. They meet regularly, both on Skype and in person, and they have to date collected weekly phytoplankton data every summer for 10 years from Lake Sunapee (the spotlighted article covering the first eight of these). They have begun studying a number of other lakes as well, although these are not included in the spotlighted paper.

The inference thus far is that the degree of mixing of the water column influences the annual likelihood of Gloeotrichia blooms, probably because greater mixing – including deeper thermoclines – increases recruitment of cyanobacteria from the sediments. And regional climatic variability could be the ultimate driver of how much mixing happens from one year to the next. Cayelan says that one of the most important take-home messages is that long-term monitoring is essential to get a handle on natural variability. Interestingly, each year has been different since her undergrad thesis in the summer of 2005! Another message we can gather from talking to Cayelan is that often an unquantifiable interaction between a well-functioning group of scientists, students, and mentors (read: the Gloeo Gang) and an intriguing study direction can result in something that transcends the sum of the parts. This intangible could be why many of us “do science” in the first place. Cayelan describes the ongoing work as a “labor of love” and with a figurative wink says she looks forward to publishing the Gloeo Gang’s 15-year research summary in FWS in a few years.

The 2007 Gloeo field crew on the dock of homeowner, citizen scientist, and watershed group member Midge Eliassen. Standing, L-R: Cayelan Carey and Dartmouth undergrad Zach Meyer. Half-standing on the R:  Fairfield University undergrad Stacy Davis. Kneeling, L-R: Holly Ewing, Kathy Cottingham, Kathie Weathers, and Dartmouth undergrad Yirin Gu. (photo: Midge Eliassen)

Another way to look at Gloeo, minus the fancy buoy.  (photo: Elizabeth Traver)
 

ITD Q&A: Joe Giersch

For our first our first ITD (in the drift) Q&A, we caught up with USGS aquatic entomologist Joe Giersch.

Joe was recently featured – along with other SFS-ters Ric Hauer and Jack Stanford – in an NPR (National Public Radio) segment with science correspondent Christopher Joyce. The segment aired on 27 August and featured footage from various field locations in the Glacier National Park (GNP) and Flathead regions of northern Montana, USA. It emphasizes climate change in high-altitude aquatic systems and is titled “There’s a Big Leak in America’s Water Tower”.

NPR's Christopher Joyce (right) interviewing SFS member Joe Giersch at an alpine stream in Glacier National Park. (photo: Clint Muhlfeld)


Here’s what Joe (JoeG) had to say:

ITD: How much time did you have to prepare for Chris Joyce’s visit to GNP, and how did he find out about your research in the first place?

JoeG: We had a couple of weeks to prepare for the interview. In May of this year, Chris had interviewed Clint Muhlfeld, my USGS supervisor and PI on all our aquatics projects, about his recent paper on trout hybridization accelerated by climate change (link here). During that interview, Clint had talked to Chris about our alpine stream work.

ITD: What kind of a crew did Chris Joyce have with him?

JoeG: It was just Chris Joyce solo. He did all of his own recording.

ITD: He was clearly flying around in Ric Hauer’s airplane, at Flathead Lake interviewing Jack Stanford, at GNP with you and others… How long did he spend in the region?

JoeG: I don’t know how long he was here, but Chris came to Missoula (Montana) for the North America Congress for Conservation Biology, July 13-16. He then spent three or four days in the Flathead region, where he met with Ric, Jack, and us USGS folks.

ITD: How many people were with you on the recording trip to the GNP stream with Lednia (the meltwater stoneflies)?

JoeG: On that trip to the field, there were four of us: Chris Joyce, Clint Muhlfeld, Dan Fagre (USGS research ecologist and head of the Climate Change in Mountain Ecosystems program here in GNP), and myself. Dan Fagre’s group has been monitoring and quantifying the shrinkage of glaciers here in the park for nearly twenty years.

ITD: This seems pretty exciting to us: were you nervous?

JoeG: Not at all. I love being in the field with new people and sharing the stories about the study sites. It gives me a chance to distill our research and discoveries into a format that can be easily understood by anyone, as well as put our work into a larger context. I feel much more comfortable talking to people in the field than in front of an audience.

ITD: Did you feel like you got your message across during the interview and that NPR conveyed it well?

JoeG: The interview did a good job of highlighting the threats under a changing climate from the highest headwater streams throughout the entire Flathead Basin. Using our studies of Lednia tumana as an example, the interview successfully conveyed the importance of some of the smaller organisms in the web of life in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem.

Lednia tumana, the meltwater stonefly. (photo: Joe Giersch)


ITD: Would you mind giving us a quick summary of that message here, from the point of view of your own research on alpine stream biota in GNP?

JoeG: My message is that with a warming climate, the unique aquatic alpine fauna – not just in GNP, but worldwide – is imperiled, and warrants further study. Alpine streams are unique and diverse habitats, often with their own fauna, but our knowledge of these systems and their biota is lacking.

Our work on alpine streams is an important component of larger studies of the aquatic resources along the entire stream continuum – from the smallest headwater streams to the large lakes downstream. GNP has a high diversity of plants and animals, largely due to the fact that it is the convergence zone of three major continental river drainages (at Triple Divide Pass). Hence, plants and animals recolonized the region from all directions after the Pleistocene. The complex topography of GNP also contributes to high biodiversity, by creating numerous microclimates and habitats.

ITD: Are any of the GNP alpine stream invertebrates considered endangered or threatened?

JoeG: Along with L. tumana, Zapada glacier (the western glacier stonefly), has been petitioned for listing under the endangered Species Act (ESA). Though L. tumana is widely distributed throughout alpine streams in Glacier National Park, we have only collected Z. glacier from three locations. There are a handful of other coldwater-adapted alpine aquatic species here in GNP that are at risk of extirpation due to the loss of permanent snow and ice due to climate change. Several of these are just as rare, if not more so, than these petitioned species. I always try to emphasize that concern over these species is not just about "a bug", but they are representative of an entire, unique ecosystem. Many animals in the alpine stream ecosystem only live in the coldest, uppermost reaches of the streams. Because of the rapid thermal changes along the continuum, and steep topography of GNP, coldwater dependent alpine invertebrates face a great deal of genetic isolation. Many of these species have poor dispersal abilities as well (small wings, poor fliers), further increasing their isolation. And they also face what Clint in the NPR interview referred to as “a squeeze play”. As they migrate upstream in response to warming water temperatures, there will soon be nowhere left to go.

ITD: It must be difficult to convey the importance of biodiversity of tiny insects in remote, fishless streams. How do you face this challenge?

JoeG: The eventual loss of these species in GNP will result in an overall loss of diversity throughout this historically diverse region – and that’s a big deal. It can be a challenge as a scientist to convey the importance of regional and local biodiversity, and we do need more work to investigate how these obscure, seemingly unimportant invertebrate species with little or no economic value fit into the bigger picture. How will their loss affect food webs, nutrient dynamics, and other processes in alpine streams? Very little work has been done on these habitats in the northern Rocky Mountains – most of what we know about alpine streams comes from some excellent work done by researchers in Europe.

Our work on L. tumana distributions in relation to temperature is just the beginning. We are currently investigating their biogeography to model the current versus future distributions of L. tumana and other alpine species using genomic methods. There are plenty of other opportunities to investigate the interplay of periphyton communities, foodwebs, nutrient dynamics and other factors within alpine streams in GNP. Glacier National Park had 1.37 million visitors during July and August alone. Most people come to see the bears, goats, and other large animals, but very few of them appreciate what I call “charismatic microfauna”. There are many opportunities for educating the public about our work, and the NPR story did a great job of conveying the message.

 

Pam's Journal Notes

Pam's Corner

FWS is becoming more popular! This is good news for the reputation of our journal and the quality of published papers. But acceptance rates are declining and editors are cracking down on the length of manuscripts. Here's what Pam has to say about what this means for authors and why 37 and 8,600 are magic numbers:

I just submitted the last article to be published in FWS in 2014. We will publish ~1350 pages in volume 33 (2014), ~150 more than the number planned for the volume, and we still have a significant backlog of papers received in 2013 and 2014 that are or will be published online ahead of print and awaiting space in the journal. University of Chicago Press (UCP) responded to this backlog by increasing our planned number of pages to 1500 in 2015 (200 more than projected in 2013, when they became our partner). Irwin Polls and I hope this increase will ease the space crunch, but high submission rates continue to counteract the increase in pages.

Increasing pages carries additional publication costs. The Editorial Board and UCP recommended the following courses of action to relieve pressure on space and monetary budgets.

 

  1. FWS has become more selective, and our acceptance rate has decreased. This step carries the additional benefit of increasing the quality of papers published in FWS. We have not set an arbitrary rejection rate, but we will require higher standards for acceptance. We recognize that FWS is an important publication outlet for young scientists and scientists for whom English is a second language. Our Associate Editors will continue to mentor and advise so authors can meet the bar.
  2. FWS has instituted tiered page charges. The average paper published in FWS in the last 2 y was ~13 pages (n = 107, mean = 11.5, median = 12, modes = 10 and 13 pages, range = 4–20 pages). Many papers exceeded 13 pages, and these papers disproportionately decrease the remaining space available. Some papers must be longer than average—e.g., reviews, meta-analyses, comprehensive systematics papers, or papers reporting large or complex studies—but usually, careful editing and attention to length can keep a paper ≤13 printed pages. Freshwater Science page charges will remain at $US30/page for the first 13 pages of a paper. To provide incentive to keep papers as short as possible and to offset the additional costs (financial and space) associated with longer papers, FWS will charge a premium of $US20/page (total = $US50/page) for each page above 13. Online supplemental tables and figures are free.

The following points should help guide you during manuscript preparation:

  • A properly formatted Freshwater Science manuscript has 2.5-cm margins, 12-pt Times Roman font (10-pt table entries), 1 line space above headings, no extra lines between paragraphs or literature cited entries, and consists of a separate title page, 1-page abstract/key words, body text (double spaced), 1-page Acknowledgements, Literature Cited (double spaced, 1-cm hanging indent), figure captions (double spaced, 1-cm hanging indent), and tables (1/page).
  • Based on 107 papers to date in 2014, a 13-page printed paper corresponds to ~8600 total words (R2 = 0.88; title page to the last table entry) or ~37 manuscript pages (R2 = 0.87; title page to the last table and including 1 page/figure). The variability is a function of table and figure size.

 

Kim's Cash-Flow Corner

In an all-new series, Kim Haag, chair of the Finance Committee, tells us about our - your - SFS money. In this introductory blurb, Kim addresses that pressing question:

What DO your DUES DO for YOU??

Did you know that >75% of SFS income comes from DUES and therefore depends strongly on the size of the membership? Annual dues are $75 for Regular members, $55 for Early Career members, and $40 for Student members. And where do these dues go? Currently $15 of Regular and Early Career dues and $10 of Student dues goes to the journal for electronic access, and the rest supports SFS operating expenses (see next paragraph). The total SFS membership in 2013 was 1,635 and consisted of 1,043 Regular members, 111 Early Career members, and 425 Student members. There were 56 Emeritus members (who do not pay dues) in 2013. Therefore – I’ll do the math for you – SFS dues income in 2013 (excluding the part that went to journal access) was about $80,000. Of course, membership fluctuates from year to year, and so it becomes important for us to project changes in dues income. How we do these projections and anticipate changes in dues income will be the focus of a column in a later issue.

SFS’s operating expenses consist of contractual obligations (e.g. membership management, web services), liability insurance, accounting fees, awardee reimbursement, a variety of other recurrent expenses that change in amount from year to year, and non-recurrent discretionary expenses that arise in response to requests from committees or individual members. The President and the Board of Directors, in consultation with the Finance Committee, can approve contracts and approve or disapprove of proposed expenses. You elect these people to make these decisions and ensure that your DUES are DOING as much as possible to support the mission of SFS. A future column will describe how SFS expenses are controlled, and what happens if/when expenses exceed income.

And what about the cost of the annual meetings, you ask? The SFS annual meeting is budgeted to pay for meeting expenses with registration fees and other meeting income. The meeting is expected to “break even”, and in most years meeting income exceeds meeting expenses. Rarely, meeting expenses exceed meeting income, and when that occurs the shortfall is taken from our reserve fund. Profits from meetings are not used to support the SFS annual operations shown in the “expenses” pie chart above.

We hope you find this helpful. Please feel free to contact me any time with questions or feedback: khhaag@usgs.gov.
 

SFS and Environmental Policy

"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it." ~Alexander Woollcott

SFS ex-prez Dave Penrose has a few things to say about freshwater scientists getting involved in policy, and he wants you to contact him if you already are:

Our Science and Policy Committee has been busy of late, responding to incredibly important pending rules and policies such as the proposed ‘Waters of the US’ rule currently before the USEPA.  Much of our work now and certainly in the future will be driven by policy-makers in DC, capitols across the US and around the world. Did you know that there are water caucuses in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate whose job it is to review pending laws and environmental rules that deal with water? Perhaps members of these two caucuses are your representatives in Washington. Did you know that there’s a multi-agency group of scientists (SWAQ – Surface Water and Availability Quality) whose primary purpose is to advise and assist the National Science and Technology Council of the President on policies, procedures, plans, issues, scientific developments, and research needs related to the availability and quality of water resources of the United States?

Dave Penrose (right) with his North Carolina senator, Kay Hagan (center), and Gordon Nelson (president of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents).


It is important for scientists to be engaged in water policy. Many of the most informed and respected water scientists in our country are members of SFS, and SFS now has become an active member of both the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) and the Consortium of Aquatic Scientific Societies (CASS). However, we would like to get a better inventory of the many ways that SFS members are participating in water policy. Relevant activities include (certainly not limited to) membership on national boards or committees (Department of Interior for example), climate change review committees, water review teams, or a propensity to visit your elected officials and discuss important water issues. Please let me (Dave) know about your policy experiences: penrose.watershed.science@gmail.com

Why, you ask? Well, one good reason is that the planning committee for SFS 2015 in Milwaukee is considering a workshop or special session that would train our members (especially students) how to better engage with policy and management. Many members of our society are interested in bringing science more effectively to bear on management problems and policy about freshwater ecosystems but are not trained or experienced in engaging effectively with managers and policy-makers. The goal of this session is to inspire and teach SFS members how better to engage with managers and policy-makers concerned with fresh waters. Check the Milwaukee meeting page (http://sfsannualmeeting.org/) for updates on this workshop.

Dave P. and his Windows desktop, introducing a water session at the most recent CSSP conference in Washington, D.C. The current (at the time) SFS president Randy Fuller also participated.

 

Portland 2014 Meeting Recap

Communication, beer, and the dream of the '90s. Alive in Portland.

JASM shatters attendance records. “JASM 2014” was the first-ever Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting – including us (SFS), ASLO, Society for Wetland Scientists, and the Phycological Society of America.  We four societies stormed Portland, Oregon with a grand total of 3,180 registrants! 

The mighty Willamette. On Sunday night, Stan Gregory provided introductory comments to the whole meeting by showing off Portland’s local river and its many restoration success stories, including the Thiess International Riverprize. (And for more on this topic, check out the Making Waves podcast #10.)

A scientist-turned-award-winning-filmmaker. Randy Olson gave the Sunday night keynote address, encouraging us scientists to be better storytellers. And also generating in many of us a nagging sensation that we needed to re-do our talks at the last minute. (For continued Olson stimulation, see his blog TheBenshi.com)

“Talk to strangers”. SFS president Randy Fuller gave his address on Monday morning, following the “communication” theme. Did you take his advice and talk to “strangers” from other societies? Should our four societies have a single public voice?

From Pooh Corner to Middle Earth. Colin Townsend got the 2014 Award of Excellence and described his career path essentially as such. He credited much success to his relationship with “research life partner”, Alan Hildrew, with whom he realized the true nature of streams as “patchy in space, dynamic in time”.

More in modern communication methods. Stuart Bunn was the first (Monday morning) plenary speaker, and co-organizer LeRoy Poff used his iPhone notes for the introductory comments. Stuart wondered what exactly freshwater ecology is doing to inform the global water crisis. Water security is a big deal, but where are the arguments for protecting freshwater biodiversity?

The Business Meeting was not at lunch. At JASM, the “Business Lunch” became the “Business Late-Afternoon Beer & Wine”. And we might be on to something here, as even the more intricate details of the finance report resulted in a few excited whoops and hollers from attendees.

Monday evening awards. Mark Wetzel got the Distinguished Service Award and had two bits of life advice: teach when you can, and “get involved”. Clearly, this is advice from a person dedicated to service. Who could be more deserving? The Environmental Stewardship Award went to Michael Barbour. But after all, he says, “isn’t this what we’re all about?” And the Hynes Award went to Dan Allen, who gave a forward-thinking presentation about his “ecogeoscience” approach (made all the more exciting by a number of inadvertently placed ! exclamation points).

ITD is official! The newsletter in the drift – that’s right, this newsletter – is now officially in the SFS by-laws, thanks to a highly contentious vote by the membership (ha ha, not really; we passed with flying colors).

Dave Strayer is our new prez. Randy handed over the presidency to Dave on Monday night. Dave plans to put serious effort into SFS membership issues and to defining what we might want out of “joining hands” with other societies.

Awesome sessions. There are sessions at our meetings that are so dynamic and full of excited whispers, nods of approval, and enthusiastic questions. An example from JASM: “Emergent insects as focal taxa for bridging ecological understanding across ecosystems: a synthesis of current knowledge and novel applications”. Nice job to all special session organizers. Our sessions are like no other meeting, year after year.

Aquatic Scientists take over Pioneer Square. The all-society banquet was at Pioneer Square, in the heart of downtown Portland. We packed the place, drank local brews, ate local food, and rocked out to tunes from local musicians who have been long-time favorites of stream ecologists throughout the Willamette Valley.

Contemplating change. Julian Olden gave the final plenary on Friday morning. Topic: Change. Did you know that one deep breath of air contains about 26 more molecules of CO2 than it did a couple of hundred years ago?

Lack of potable water at the water conference. On Friday mid-day the City of Portland declared a citywide alert that all tap water must be boiled before consuming. #2014JASM classic.

Thank you! To Lucinda Johnson, LeRoy Poff, Sherri Johnson, and the multitude of others who put in so much work to pull off this huge, fantastic 2014 meeting!

See you in Milwaukee. Hello cheeseheads, we’ll see you in Wisconsin next year, on the shores of lake Michigan (which unfortunately shares the name of Wisconsin’s neighboring state). Milwaukee 2015 meeting co-organizers are Steve Francoeur, Emily Stanley, and Bob Stelzer.

Your 2013-2104 treasurer (Mike Swift), secretary (Sue Norris), assistant to the president (Brian Shelley), and president (Randy Fuller).  BOD meeting, Portland, 2014.  This is how things get done, y'all. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

The mayfly workshop drew quite a crowd (of aquatic scientists and their subjects!). (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Instars and instar mentors pre-meeting in Portland.  The Instar program was re-funded for the 2015 meeting and is becoming a quite successful SFS fixture. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

The 2014 Instars quickly learn that science chatter and beer go hand-in-hand. (photo: Mike Swift)

Stan Gregory, Lucinda Johnson, and Randy Olson on opening night (Sunday). (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Stuart Bunn, Randy Fuller, and Colin Townsend at the Monday morning plenary session and Award of Excellence address. These guys could be in a fashion magazine! (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Award of Excellence to Colin Townsend on the big screen in the convention center.  (Photo: Mike Swift)

The registration desk was hopping, and even it reflected the quirkiness of Portland.  Did you go on the Aquatic Science Art Tour? (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Committee lunch on Monday. A lot gets done in a single lunch hour in this room.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Seven of the eight students who won presentation awards in Jacksonville (2013) were present in Portland to receive them. Congrats to all! (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Prez Randy Fuller presents the Environmental Stewardship Award to Michael Barbour. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Mark Wetzel is chuffed to receive the Distinguished Service Award. One of his numerous distinguished services to SFS is his designation as official meeting photographer.  In this case, however, someone else had to take the photo. (Photo: Mike Swift)

Randy, beer in hand, secretly adds several exclamation points to Hynes Award winner Dan Allen's excellent presentation. Ecosystems!  Earth sciences! (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Secretary Sue Norton gets everyone fired up about reading the committee reports at the Monday evening business meeting. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Our outgoing president Randy Fuller thanks his "assistant to the president" Brian Shelley with a Beer of the Month Club subscription.  Brian recently reported this subscription is coming in quite handy. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Did we mention there was beer?  Portland has good beer. SFS has good beer drinkers. This worked out pretty well. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

The passing of the mug  - and the SFS presidency. Welcome to the helm, Dave Strayer. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

The mycophiles at the taxonomy fair put the "fun" in Fungi. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Representing our journal: Pam Silver (editor), Irwin Polls (business manager), Pam's husband Doug, Sheila Stephens (editorial assistant), and Emily Murphy (from University of Chicago Press). (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Students from the Portland Public Schools show off their poster on land use and %EPT. Patrick Edwards from Portland State University organized this middle- and high-school poster session on Thursday morning. (photo: Deb Finn)

For the Wed. night all-society banquet/party, aquatic scientists took over Pioneer Square, smack in the middle of downtown Portland. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

The band was an assemblage of local Willamette Valley musicians known as the Benthic Blues.  Best band name at a conference yet!  (And Mark Wetzel also managed to get the "Blue Line" of the Portland MAX in the background on this photo.)

Where did the guitar player get this awesome tattoo?? (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Nice shot of Ted Sedell, Len Smock, Stan Gregory, and others getting the party started.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Some more familiar faces show up at Pioneer Square.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

Somehow, photographer Mark Wetzel made it into another photo, this time with some of his expansive fan club.  (photo: Mark's camera, unknown photographer)

In addition to beer, there were some other beverages. But what is that top one? A rare lightwight isotope of oxygen? Hmmm... That catering service should have been more prepared for aquatic scientists.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

After dinner, the party really got started.  (Photo: Mark Wetzel)

A mini-party of algologists.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

High-stakes cornhole, sponsored by Eugene, Oregon brewery Ninkasi. (photo: Mark Wetzel)

More revelers.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

And more revelers.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

And yet more revelers.  (photo: Mark Wetzel)

As the evening drew to a close, many aquatic scientists still lingered in Pioneer Square.  (photo: Sherri Johnson)

 

Your in the drift newsletter is brought to you by Deb Finn, Julie Zimmerman, and Patina Mendez. We represent the Public Information and Publicity (PIP) committee of SFS, co-chaired by Erin Hotchkiss and Becky Bixby.
What's New
  • Making Waves Ep. 25: Modeling Environmental DNA Movement in Streams, Arial Shogren more
  • September 2017 Issue of Freshwater Science now online more
  • What's happenin'? Find out the news In The Drift... more
  • Read the Spring 2016 issue of in the drift! more
  • Proposed Constitutional Revisions 2016 more
  • Newsletter! Newsletter! in the drift more
  • Does Cultural Diversity Matter to Scientific Societies? Read the President's Environment more
BENTHOS News
  • SFS signs two letters sent to the US EPA regarding the Trump Administration's proposed revisions to the Waters of the US rule



    more
  • COMPETITION CLOSED - SFS announces logo redesign competition. Submissions due 21 Aug. 2017.

    more
  • Please take a short survey on the SFS logo redesign

    more
  • The SFS ad hoc committee on inclusivity is producing a short video to highlight why freshwater scientists value having a diverse and inclusive society

    more
  • Upcoming deadlines for the Fourth Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology

    more

More SFS News...

Back to Top
NABS Logo
© 2015 Society for Freshwater Science
Membership Services:
(435) 797-9270 | sfsmembership@usu.edu