shrivel data

Here’s a snippet of R code showing how to extract info from the shrivel character data (a file is below…

df <- data.frame(shrivel.txt =c("x", "xoxx", "xxxx", "oooo", "xoooo"))
df      # start off with this data frame

df$shrivel.count <- nchar(as.character(df$shrivel.txt)) #add column

vx <- gsub("o", "", df$shrivel.txt)  # replace o with ""
df$shrivel.xs <- nchar(vx)           # make a new column in df

vo <- gsub("x", "", df$shrivel.txt)  # replace x with ""
df$shrivel.os <- nchar(vo)           # make a new column in df

df      # final data frame


2 new graphs–what to do?

2 graphs that are basically the same as the one with alfalfa on my poster, bu tusing sweet clover and amorpha instead. Although amorpha is the most common native species in floral neighborhoods per unique plant, there are only 43 plants that had either just amorpha, just echinacea, both , or neither. For sweet clover, the sample size is 82, but the graph isn’t very impressive either….

Do you think either one is usable? I originally wanted to use the most common native and the most common exotic (alfalfa and amorpha).
ecan amca meof comparison graphs.xls

News from the big city

Hey yall,
Back in Chi town finally after about 10 hrs of traveling. I said “Get er done” to someone today out of habit and got a weird look. Thanks guys. I’m also going through baked goods and other delicious foods withdrawal.

Final version of poster: Jenkins REU09.pdf

Hope everyone’s doing well in K-town! I miss yall already…and my bike 🙁

ps. I knew Roxy would come through for us. Warren should’ve known better after the snake incident.

Compiled pollinator observation/capture data

Hello friends,

We just finished a rousing lunchtime discussion on the virtues of archiving, so I thought this might be an appropriate time to post our compiled data set from all four days of pollinator observations and captures.

species richness in floral neighborhoods

Here are files with presence/absence of species within the 2m floral neighborhoods
fnc10mNeighborhood.csv and within 10m floral neighborhoods fnc2mNeighborhood.csv. The first is just a reorganization of FNC.csv and the second includes info from FNC.csv and from WITHIN10M.csv.

Pressed plants and painted bracts

Here’s a photo of the box I built for drying plants with generously donated materials from the Wagenius family.

A pressed specimen of Anemone canadensis collected at Hegg Lake with Greg.



One of my painted heads after being repainted this week. Each paint color identifies a pollen treatment.


Thanks to Mimi for letting me use her camera!


Here is a list of the plants I used in the common garden for my experiment on pollen interference/competition. I used 20 randomly selected plants in the 96 garden with 12 pollination treatments on each plant. The heads I harvested are also included in this spreadsheet, but here they are again: 39 952 blu and wht heads were harvested on 7/24/09.


The preliminary results seem to show that the only treatments that consistently did not shrivel were:
silver-the control, no pollinations
white-Carduus acanthoides pollen only (thistle)
pink-Coreopsis palmata pollen only

All of the treatments that received echinacea pollen (either am or pm) showed somewhat consistent shriveling…. will it hold up to the stats…. we will see!

the most interesting treatment is…..
purple-Heliopsis helianthoides pollen only- this one had a mix of results, which may be due to differences in the amount of pollen arriving on the styles or some other factor. but it certainly did not show consistent style persistence. hmmmmm…..

Just as a reminder, style shriveling indicates that compatible Echinacea pollen has arrived on a style, and can be a good predictor of seed set. Style persistence indicates that compatible pollen has not landed on a style. In the case of some of my treatments which had both Echinacea pollen and another type of pollen, shriveling may not indicate seed set. This will be tested by dissecting the heads and weighing the seeds later this year.

More results to come soon…

pollen load progress

Listen up, Echinacea fans!

I’ve now finished making slides and taking photos of the first 68 insect visitors–only 107 left to go.

Here are some photos of the process:

1) Here is an insect carrying LOADS of pollen (haha! get it?) which I am about to transfer onto a small agar cube on a microscope slide.

2) I heat the slide, complete with pollen-covered agar cube and cover slip, on a hotplate. Next I throw the completed, labeled slide under the microscope camera and take photos like theseYL1304N119-5b.jpg:



3) I’ve pinned each specimen with a unique ID code that corresponds to its vial ID number.


The most common genera near as I can tell from the reference collection are…

Male Melissodes sp.

And Ceratina sp.

Please leave questions or comments and I’ll do my best to respond!


So many styles, so little time

So, I’ve been working hard creating slides from all the styles everyone helped to collect (thanks!), and this is the protocol I’ve been using:

1. Place the blank slide on a clean surface
2. Pull out the correct vial, open carefully (sometimes the styles are on the lid of the vial), use clean tweezers to remove the contents. Place vial contents onto the slide.
3. Remove any anther parts from the slide; organize the stigmas so they are separate/easily differentiated from each other.
4. Place one drop of glycerin on top of the stigmas. If there are any bubbles, try to move them away from the stigmas.
5. Place a cover slip carefully over the glycerin and allow it to settle.
6. Use mounting medium to seal the cover slip to the slide. Allow the slide to dry on a flat surface for 24-48 hours.
E. Put completed slides into slide boxes.

Of the approximately 380 slides I started with, I have 150 left to do, so I’m more than 1/2 way there. Once I’ve created all these slides, I’ll start taking photos and uploading pictures.

Anyway, just felt like it was about time I updated. Gonna go make slides now… ^_^

Pollinator Comp. Data for analysis

Here is the data that’s been compiled for FNC, pollinator observations, within 10 m, and the isolation measure of flowering Echinacea focal plants.

Some things I wanted to point out that may or may not make a difference:
>In the FNC data, all quadrants with none present have no data for distances, and sometimes there is only one distance if there was only 1 infl of a species within a quadrant…
>I still need to check each tag number that we recorded for FNC and make sure it coincides with the original record of tags we made when we flagged.
>For the isolation measure, I put in 11 for distances >10m. I marked the original distance in the notes in cases where they were >10m but measured out (i.e.SPP)
>For inflorescence counts>100, I put in 1000. In the comparison file below, we changed 1000 to 101 since we had to sum the inflct for each unique ID and so some of the infl ct were showing up as >1000.
pollcomparison ecan mesa amca.csv
ech mesa comparison with mean std error.csv
ech amca comparison with mean sterror.csv

As of 8/3:The last 2 files are new. In order to make the graph that appears on my poster, we divided the unique Id’s into 4 groups: 1-alfalfa only in fl.neighborhood 2-ech only 3-both 4-neither. I took the average and standard error from each of those 4 groups to make the 4 bars on the graph. I want to do the same thing for Amorpha. So I attached the file that I’d use to make the same graph but with amorpha. You could use the third to last file which has infl ct for each unique ID for ecan, mesa, and amca to do the analysis but I figured I’d put the others up so you could know how I made the graph…

FYI, after Amanda and I looked at all the vials yesterday, it turns out that over our 4 day stint we had 132 bees, 13 scsf, 33 flies, 4 butterflies, 15 beetles. Good work everyone!