Monitoring Forest Restoration Activities in NYC Parks

The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (NYC Parks) owns 30,000 acres of property in New York City, 12,000 acres of this is natural areas, including 7,300 acres of forest. These forests have been monitored and managed since the Natural Resources Group was founded in 1984. The forests experience a variety of threats: some threats are a legacy of past land use and development, while others are continuous. Monitoring forest management practices has been occurring for decades and has taken many forms, including site-specific monitoring of restoration outcomes and system-wide monitoring to understand overall health and ecological trajectory. This case study contextualizes the various forms of monitoring and describes a recent and ongoing shift in monitoring protocols

Preserving Nature in New York City: NYC Parks’ Forever Wild Program

Urban biodiversity has increasingly been recognized as providing multiple local, regional, and even global benefits. In New York City (NYC), conservation and planning professionals in the Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) pursued biodiversity protection through the creation of a “Forever Wild” program in 2001, which designated and aimed to protect 8,700 acres of the largest, most ecologically valuable natural areas across City parkland. In 2018-2020, NYC Parks’ Natural Resources Group (NRG) expanded the program’s extent, resulting in 2,500 acres added to the Forever Wild program, for a total of over 12,300 acres. These additions reflect new acquisitions to the Parks system as well as an acknowledgment of the ecological importance of smaller patches of habitat. By prioritizing the conservation of habitat at the scale of the Parks system, the Forever Wild program enabled tackling some of the scale mismatches that often challenge urban ecosystem management. Over the past two decades, this program has highlighted the value of habitat conservation within NYC Parks, enabled the reduction of natural resource impacts from construction projects in or near Forever Wild areas, and included hundreds of acres of ecological restoration. At the same time, the program has faced constraints and challenges due to competing priorities for limited public land in NYC. Because the program does not confer any regulatory or statutory power, its effectiveness has waxed and waned under different administrations, each with their own priorities. To meet this challenge, NRG has aimed to make information about Forever Wild areas, the program, and its intent widely available within the agency and to the public. NRG has worked to coordinate with other parts of the agency to anticipate and better manage conflicts while protecting biodiversity. Still, upholding the program’s conservation goals in the face of continued threats remains an ongoing challenge. More recently, the need for outdoor recreation during the COVID pandemic has given new visibility to natural areas in NYC. NYC Parks will continue to rely on the Forever Wild program to care for these areas while also facilitating their appropriate use

Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City

In dense metropolitan areas, there are many factors including traffic congestion, building development and social organizations that may impact the health of street trees. The focus of this study is to better understand how social, biological and urban design factors affect the mortality rates of newly planted street trees. Prior analyses of street trees planted by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation between 1999 and 2003 (n=45,094) found 91.3% of those trees were alive after two years and 8.7% were either standing dead or missing completely. Using a site assessment tool, a randomly selected sample of 13,405 of these trees was surveyed throughout the City of New York during the summers of 2006 and 2007. Overall, 74.3% of the sample trees were alive when surveyed and the remainder were either standing dead or missing. Results of our initial analyses reveal that highest mortality rates occur within the first few years after planting, and that land use has a significant effect on street tree mortality. Trees planted in one- and two-family residential areas had the highest survival rates (82.7%), while young street trees planted in industrial areas, open space and vacant land had the lowest rates of street tree survival (60.3% -62.9%). Also significant in predicting street tree success and failure are species type, tree pit enhancements, direct tree care/stewardship, and local traffic conditions. These results are intended to inform urban forest managers in making decisions about the best conditions for planting new street trees

A Call to Action: Taking the Untenable out of Women Professors’ Pregnancy, Postpartum, and Caregiving Demands

Despite becoming increasingly represented in academic departments, women scholars face a critical lack of support as they navigate demands pertaining to pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving. In addition, cultural norms surrounding how faculty and academic leaders discuss and talk about tenure, promotion, and career success have created pressure for women who wish to grow their family and care for their children, leading to questions about whether it is possible for these women to have a family and an academic career. The current paper is a call to action for academia to build structures that support women professors as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. We specifically call on those of us in I-O psychology, management, and related departments to lead the way. In making this call, we first present the realistic, moral, and financial cases for why this issue needs to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding success in the academy. We then discuss how in the U.S. and elsewhere, an absence of policies supporting women places two groups of academics—department heads (as the leaders of departments who have discretion outside of formal policies to make work better for women) and other faculty members (as potential allies both in the department and within our professional organizations)—in a critical position to enact support and change. We conclude with our boldest call—to make a cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success. Combined, we seek to launch a discussion that leads directly to necessary and overdue changes in how women scholars are supported in academia

A functional definition to distinguish ponds from lakes and wetlands

Ponds are often identified by their small size and shallow depths, but the lack of a universal evidence-based definition hampers science and weakens legal protection. Here, we compile existing pond definitions, compare ecosystem metrics (e.g., metabolism, nutrient concentrations, and gas fluxes) among ponds, wetlands, and lakes, and propose an evidence-based pond definition. Compiled definitions often mentioned surface area and depth, but were largely qualitative and variable. Government legislation rarely defined ponds, despite commonly using the term. Ponds, as defined in published studies, varied in origin and hydroperiod and were often distinct from lakes and wetlands in water chemistry. We also compared how ecosystem metrics related to three variables often seen in waterbody definitions: waterbody size, maximum depth, and emergent vegetation cover. Most ecosystem metrics (e.g., water chemistry, gas fluxes, and metabolism) exhibited nonlinear relationships with these variables, with average threshold changes at 3.7 ± 1.8 ha (median: 1.5 ha) in surface area, 5.8 ± 2.5 m (median: 5.2 m) in depth, and 13.4 ± 6.3% (median: 8.2%) emergent vegetation cover. We use this evidence and prior definitions to define ponds as waterbodies that are small (< 5 ha), shallow (< 5 m), with < 30% emergent vegetation and we highlight areas for further study near these boundaries. This definition will inform the science, policy, and management of globally abundant and ecologically significant pond ecosystems.Fil: Richardson, David C.. State University of New York at New Paltz; Estados UnidosFil: Holgerson, Meredith A.. Cornell University; Estados UnidosFil: Farragher, Matthew J.. University of Maine; Estados UnidosFil: Hoffman, Kathryn K.. No especifíca;Fil: King, Katelyn B. S.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Alfonso, María Belén. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía; ArgentinaFil: Andersen, Mikkel R.. No especifíca;Fil: Cheruveil, Kendra Spence. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Coleman, Kristen A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Farruggia, Mary Jade. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Fernandez, Rocio Luz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Hondula, Kelly L.. No especifíca;Fil: López Moreira Mazacotte, Gregorio A.. Leibniz - Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries; AlemaniaFil: Paul, Katherine. No especifíca;Fil: Peierls, Benjamin L.. No especifíca;Fil: Rabaey, Joseph S.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Sadro, Steven. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Sánchez, María Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Smyth, Robyn L.. No especifíca;Fil: Sweetman, Jon N.. State University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unido

Skunk River Review 2009-10, vol 22

Welcome to the 2009-2010 edition of The Skunk River Review! We received a record number of entries this year, making this volume one of the best and most competitive! We even added a new category called Art & Literary Analysis to include a growing number of submissions dedicated to inspiration and critique. Each year we continue to receive many fine examples of student writing. Selection is a challenging process but enjoyable as the submissions range from a variety of topics and styles. Selected entries were only minimally edited for clarity. The Skunk River Review focuses on students from various DMACC campuses. It includes selections from College Preparatory Writing classes, Composition I and Composition II classes. All entries generally begin as class assignments and are supported by the instructor.https://openspace.dmacc.edu/skunkriver/1001/thumbnail.jp

Comparative genomics of Cluster O mycobacteriophages

Mycobacteriophages - viruses of mycobacterial hosts - are genetically diverse but morphologically are all classified in the Caudovirales with double-stranded DNA and tails. We describe here a group of five closely related mycobacteriophages - Corndog, Catdawg, Dylan, Firecracker, and YungJamal - designated as Cluster O with long flexible tails but with unusual prolate capsids. Proteomic analysis of phage Corndog particles, Catdawg particles, and Corndog-infected cells confirms expression of half of the predicted gene products and indicates a non-canonical mechanism for translation of the Corndog tape measure protein. Bioinformatic analysis identifies 8-9 strongly predicted SigA promoters and all five Cluster O genomes contain more than 30 copies of a 17 bp repeat sequence with dyad symmetry located throughout the genomes. Comparison of the Cluster O phages provides insights into phage genome evolution including the processes of gene flux by horizontal genetic exchange

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing