With long-term monitoring campaigns focussing on mountain roads and trails, and divergences to railroads and rivers, we are happy to announce that MIREN wants to tackle another – perhaps more unusual – linear disturbance in a new, global survey: rock climbing!
Rock climbing is in many respects similar to mountain roads and trails, with routes serving as linear disturbances and dispersal corridors across elevation gradients, with significant effects on the local vegetation. Nevertheless, cliff vegetation, and the influence of rock climbing on it, is pretty unique: rock faces often cover strong microclimatic gradients, resulting in a unique vegetation of species at either the warm or cool edge of their distribution. This unique vegetation often consists of (locally) rare species with very patchy distribution, and the passage of climbing routes over their habitat might thus have substantial impact. To map that impact, and its interaction with the effects of microclimate and climate change on species redistributions, we launch this new MIREN rock face survey, and you are welcome to join!
Wilder Kaiser, Austria – by Sarane Coen
Through the MIREN rock face survey we want to learn about global similarities and interregional differences between rock faces. To do this, we will set up permanent vegetation monitoring plots on and adjacent to existing rock climbing routes to monitor local plant species richness and community composition. Wherever possible, we will also measure rock face microclimate in comparison with the microclimate in the environment.
If you are interested in monitoring the vegetation on and along one or a few rock climbing routes in the upcoming summer, express your interest via this form. We are currently developing a standardized protocol that can be applied with minimal effort on any rock climbing route across the globe. If you want to be involved in finalizing that methodology, you can inform us through the same form!
Let’s knock down an open door: interactions between species are key determinants of their performance. How well an individual is growing, or even if it is growing somewhere at all, hinges significantly on the surrounding organisms. They may vie for vital resources like air or sunlight, or conversely, aid one another by providing shade against the scorching rays of summer.
It should therefore not come as a surprise that there are thousands of papers on biotic interactions and their role in ecosystem functioning. However, while we have learned a lot about this over the last decades, there is still a surprisingly big hole in that literature. And that gaping hole is the result of inevitable oversimplification. That is, we have way too often – for the sake of simply being able to grasp ecology’s complexity – limited ourselves to direct interactions: A outcompetes B, C facilitates D. Yet, natural interactions seldom adhere to such straightforward narratives. Within an ecosystem, every individual is engaged—albeit to varying degrees—in an intricate dance of relationships, influencing and being influenced in turn.
Conceptual framework of higher order interactions (HOI)
Consider, for example, a scenario where a plant species, Plant A, attracts a specific herbivorous insect. Ordinarily, these herbivores might feed on Plant A, reducing its fitness. However, another plant species, Plant B, grows nearby and emits a molecule that attracts predators of the insects. As such, Plant B is indirectly helped by Plant A, as Insect B comes to eat Insect A. Or any other orientation of interactions.
These intricate and multifaceted relationships are labeled higher-order interactions (HOIs), a domain that has consumed a considerable amount of my time to get a hold of them in a convincing, statistically sound way. In a first attempt, we used real-world data from our mountain vegetation monitoring initiative (MIREN, http://www.mountaininvasions.org). However, that turned out very tricky, as there were simply way too many things changing at the same time to isolate something as complex as these higher-order interactions. After many an attempt, that idea was moved to the ‘death paper pile’.
In a new attempt, however, expertly led by UAntwerp-colleague Simon Reynaert and now published in Oikos, we took a different turn. We made use of a fascinating controlled experiment performed at our university campus, where precipitation was manipulated for 256 so-called mesocosms (in essence: pots with plants). What made this experiment especially useful was the uniform conditions experienced by all plants and pots, with precipitation being the sole variable—specifically, not even the AMOUNT, but the timing of rainfall.
An explanatory framework illustrating how changes in rainfall patterns, specifically increased variability, can impact the moisture levels in the soil. The grey bars represent daily rainfall amounts. Across all panels, the total precipitation matches historical weather averages (a). When weather becomes more intense (b), it leads to less frequent but heavier rainfall episodes interspersed with extended periods of dryness, particularly during higher temperatures. This scenario could worsen the effects of droughts or floods. On the other hand, when weather patterns become more persistent (c), it results in prolonged stretches of both dryness and wetness. This persistence might intensify the fluctuations in soil moisture content, potentially causing more extreme variations. In both scenarios, there’s an increased likelihood of surpassing critical soil moisture levels. This excess—either too much or too little moisture—can detrimentally impact how ecosystems function.
By holding all these conditions constant, except for the precipitation regime, we could finally test how extreme events affect HOIs. And yes, lo and behold, our results indicate that species interactions (including HOIs) are an important determinant of plant performance under this increasing weather persistence. Moreover, the importance of these interactions changed substantially along the gradient of weather persistence, with HOIs showing a shift towards stronger facilitation (or weaker competition) as drought persistence increased.
What was thus interesting, was that HOIs – at least partially – counteracted the effects of direct competition by neighbours, a conclusion that has been made in other studies as well. This could mean good news for biodiversity, as complex interactions could as such help support a higher diversity. However, a cautionary note is necessary: this counteractive effect was truly only partial, and could not overcome the increased drought intensity experienced in the most extreme precipitation regimes. In the end, species succumbed on their own to the extreme drought, and no positive higher-order interaction effect could prevent that from happening.
The complex interactions between individuals in such a meadow might help a bit in reducing the impact of extreme drought events.
There was a lot more to the results, of course, with perhaps the main conclusion that, indeed, HOIs are bloody complicated to analyze statistically. Even in this extremely controlled setting, picking up on these trends remained difficult. Thus, while ample papers have shown the theoretical importance of HOIs, we are still a long way from routineously integrating these complexities in our ecological analyses.
tl;dr: we will be looking for a database manager who wants to join our SoilTemp team, based in Antwerp, Belgium, with the main goal to make the database more accessible and more flexible. Knowledge of R required, of SQL a plus.
Blockchains and biodiversity? While these words are not too far away from each other in the dictionary, it is not that common to see them brought together in one sentence. Yet that is exactly what we aim to do in a new project that just got funded by Europe’s BiodivERsA+-funding scheme.
The project is called ForestWeb 3.0, and its goal is to help biodiversity with the power of the next generation of internet – Web 3.0, with its fancy developments like blockchain, and others.
An old birch tree in the Abisko area. Forest biodiversity like this requires long-term monitoring to observe subtle trends, but also real-time follow-up to catch sudden changes. In this project, we want to improve data availability for both.
So, how is that supposed to work? Well, biodiversity monitoring is all about data availability, and when we are talking about global monitoring, that is a LOT of data. This data is owned by LOTS of people, who spend blood, sweat, tears and a lot of chocolate and trail mix on collecting that data out in the real world. If we want to track the impacts of global change on biodiversity, we need all those monitoring initiatives – and especially the long-term ones – available in one place.
This is something we have been doing for a while in SoilTemp, especially for the vital microclimate data underlying any complete biodiversity monitoring initiative. However, there are three things to note about that:
There is still a lot more data out there than we have currently brought together (especially given that data from the latest call is still frantically being processed).
This data is not yet as available as one might hope. It still needs to be made open access, and the framework to access it should be made as user-friendly as possible.
Not everyone is that keen to send their precious data to this unknown guy in Belgium, and understandably so. What if we can ensure people can store their data locally, and it’s only the LINK to that data that gets sent to the central database?
Points one and two are things we were planning to do anyway. Point three is where the blockchain and Web 3.0 come in, with these new technologies specifically designed to increase trust, transparency and control of the data, something we are all aspiring to.
ForestWeb 3.0 also wants to go further than that. Biodiversity is economically valuable, and increasingly so. Conserving that biodiversity is as well, and should be even more. What if we could increase that economical value for biodiverse land owners, to enhance the incentives to conserve nature? Doing so, however, requires good (and fast) monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
In part two of ForestWeb 3.0, we’ll explore how this can be done. First, we’ll work on digital twins of nature, tracking biodiversity and ecosystem functions (e.g., microclimate buffering) in quasi-real time to ensure we can put better numbers to the value of biodiversity. Second, we’ll work on systems to monetize that biodiversity, and give (financial) credit to the actual people putting in the actual effort to conserve and restore nature.
Our team at the University of Antwerp is in charge of that first part: bringing together as much biodiversity and microclimate data as possible (through SoilTemp), make it accessible (both open access ánd easy to use), and make that database able to talk to remote datasets (over blockchain) and to real-time sensor networks.
Think that sound cool? Well, then we’ll soon have an opportunity for you! We will be looking for a postdoc (or predoc) to join our team and work on making SoilTemp bigger and better! A position based in Antwerp, initially for 1,5 years, for a person who loves data and databases, and is proficient in R and at least eager to learn about SQL and Web 3.0. Contribution to – and potentially leading of – global SoilTemp-papers can become part of the deal. Interested, feel free to reach out already by email (lembrechtsjonas [.ad.] gmail.com)
Dark diversity. A term that sounds sufficiently dramatic to catch the attention of many an ecologist. But it’s a good theory as well to explore: instead of the common ‘diversity’, which looks at the diversity of species/genes/traits present at a certain location or in a certain region, dark diversity focuses on those species that are NOT there. Even more importantly, it focuses on those species that are not there, but SHOULD have BEEN there. The hidden masses, the forgotten ones, those that have been lost.
The field of dark diversity tries to explain why certain species are not where they should be, in the hopes that this can give us a better understanding of community dynamics, and risks for biodiversity loss.
Intrigued? We were too, so we decided to estimate the dark diversity of our study region in northern Scandinavia, in the area surrounding the Abisko Research Station, as part of DarkDivNet, the dark diversity network. That work – led by master’s student Lore Hostens – now got published (here)!
Which plant species are missing here and why? We put the concept of dark diversity to the test in our favourite research arena in the north of the Scandes mountains
We got to work by monitoring the species that were present, and then scanned the literature for different methods to estimate dark diversity based on those. That’s when things starting to go dark (pun intended). Indeed, there were important decisions to take: which method to choose? There were a whole bunch available, many of them with several additions, adjustments, or nuances around them.
Would it matter which method we chose? Now, YES, it would! Soon enough, this question grew into our main research question: how much did the outcome differ between the different dark diversity estimation methods? Would conclusions still hold when switching from method A to B? Brace yourselves, as we are entering the muddy terrain of incomparable indices.
Schematic overview of three of the main approaches used to estimate dark diversity from the habitat-specific species pool (SP; the sum of species that are present with those that should have been present). (a) Theoretical concept of dark diversity, where the dark diversity is the non-observed set of species in a certain location, after filtering the regional species pool based on abiotic, dispersal and biotic interaction limitations. (b) Dark diversity is calculated using climatic filtering of the regional species pool (e.g., using climatic niche models to estimate which species could occur at a certain location). (c) Commonly used co-occurrence-based methods, which integrate both abiotic and interaction filters, yet don’t always include the dispersal filter, as assessments of dark diversity of a species in a plot are independent of distance to its source population.
Basically, there are (at least) three main methods to estimate dark diversity, depending on what filters one incorporates to estimate which species should and should not be present at a site. These are summarized in the figure above. Theoretically, one would exclude all species that 1) cannot occur there due to a mismatch in their environmental niche (too cold, too warm, too acid…), 2) cannot occur there because they can’t reach the place (too far away), and 3) those that are outcompeted by other species at the site (too weak, or incompatible). Unfortunately, every method has a different way of dealing with those filters.
So, many of these dark diversity estimates are theoretically substantially different. What is more, even when choosing a certain path, there are still a myriad of decisions one has to take that could affect the outcome. It should thus come as no surprise that in our case study, conclusions were entirely overturned by switching from one method to the other.
Variation in dark diversity as explained by different habitat-specific parameters, and analyzed with four different dark-diversity estimation methods. If one squints, one could assume that elevation was on average the dominant driver, but the main take-home message is clearly that every method gives an entirely different result.
The why and how of these differences are explained in detail in the paper, which you can find here.
In this story, I just want to ensure that you take one lesson home from this, and that’s the following: the concept of dark diversity is very intriguing, and intuitively makes a lot of sense, but be extremely wary of the methodological decisions that underlie it. If you use just one method to estimate your dark diversity, you might be building your conclusions entirely on loose sand. What’s more, I wouldn’t be surprised if these cautionary words could not be expanded to many other concepts in ecology that are supported by mathematical indices. Your index only tells you exactly what it measures, nothing more and nothing less, and the decisions you make along the way can have fundamental effects on your outcomes. So please, stay wary of the mathematics underneath your ecology, as they are more important than you might wish!
Note: we are no statisticians. We are humble ecologists enthusiastically coming into a problem and ending up in the mud, and just want to warn others not to get stuck!
Twitter/X, Mastodon or LinkedIn, what works best for communicating scientific findings? I got the numbers for you!
This website is almost ten years old, and still going strong. I am far from done with its main goal, which is the communication of our – I dare say important – scientific findings to a broad audience.
Now, however, for a long time, I have been relying for a significant part on Twitter to get the word out about new stories on this website. Twitter was, at least for scientific collaborators in the broad sense of the term, the best way to reach them.
For a while now, Twitter has gotten into some unwanted turmoil, and many colleagues have jumped the sinking ship. I haven’t jumped yet – not even after its renaming to the ominous ‘X’. Perhaps selfish of me, but I did not want to get off before I found an alternative way of getting the word out. A scientific publication that nobody knows about could better not have been written.
I have kept an eye out for alternatives, and tried a few, just to see what could work. Most promising, initially, was Mastodon, a network that in the days of the ‘free fall’ of Twitter was louded as its best alternative. Unfortunately, although there was a lot of buzz around it, I didn’t really find ‘my people’ there, as reflected in my poor following (see Table below): on Twitter I reach over 2000 people, on Mastodon I have only 111.
Table summarizing the likes and impressions a series of different posts got on Twitter/X, LinkedIn and Mastodon, as well as the number of followers I have on each platform (on the right). The table focusses on a selection of different topics, all linking to a blogpost on http://www.the3dlab.org, and all posted in a similar manner (yet with slightly different messages) on each of the three platforms. The ‘best performance’ for each post has bee underlined. Note that Mastodon doesn’t show the Impressions (and per default hides the likes) to avoid exactly what I’m trying to do here…
Much later, I realized that the best alternative might actually already exist, as many of these new ‘start-up’ social media platforms just don’t find the momentum they need. An existing platform that I had long been overlooking was LinkedIn. While it is mostly seen as an online CV, it also has a community, and a good space for posting updates like this one.
I had been using LinkedIn passively for years, but decided to ramp up my activity on there. Not that much later, I already had my following to 430. Interestingly, while on Twitter/X most of that following consisted of ecologists, on LinkedIn I was connected to the whole spectrum of professional society, largely thanks to the many people I met along the way all the way back from primary school, and through our citizen science projects.
So, it is time for numbers now! For a few months, I decided to promote each and every story on http://www.the3dlab.org on all three of these websites in the same way, and collect the numbers. The output is in that table above, for a various set of posts, ranging from an introduction of myself, a story with pictures from the field, a fascinating microclimate paper, the start of our citizen science project on sound, and the call for data to our growing SoilTemp database.
The conclusion is clear: both for interactions (here I looked at Likes) and impressions, X is still overpowering the others, for almost any kind of content that I want to bring. Despite my efforts, Mastodon has remained a social desert: my posts simply don’t reach anyone who cares (note that Mastodon isn’t showing me the impressions, but even if lots of people would have seen the posts, they did not interact with them).
LinkedIn is a decent second, however. What’s interesting: for the launch of that new project, which is largely in a new scientific field for me and thus less interesting to the ‘crowd’ I have build up on Twitter, LinkedIn even worked better! In general, LinkedIn is at least not that much of a wasteland as Mastodon is.
So, what to conclude:
Although everyone has been saying Twitter is dead and buried, it’s still the best place to reach a wide audience for me. Some of my most viral tweets even happened after Twitter’s informal burier (not in the table above).
LinkedIn is the only option of many that actually has given me the idea that my story gets heard, and picked up by relevant people, even outside of academia. That makes it to me a more exciting platform now than Twitter/X.
Getting a new social media platform off the ground is super hard, even when everyone agrees that they want to get rid of the old establishment. Mastodon is simply not worth the effort for me, and I will abandon it again.
What about Facebook/Instagram/Tiktok? Facebook is too much focused on personal news for me to regularly post on my scientific findings – it bores the audience there too quickly. Instagram and Tiktok are no platforms for sharing links to this blog, they would require me to rework my communication strategy too drastically.
So please, everyone, join me on LinkedIn! I think we could make it into one of the most interesting platforms for science communication, if you all join in!
We ecologists and biogeographers all want to know so badly where species are and are not living. This quest lies at the very heart of our discipline, as it provides invaluable insights into how global changes are impacting biodiversity across the planet. For this quest, we are relying on a vast array of models collectively known as ‘Habitat Suitability Models’ (HSM), which serve as our guiding compass in predicting exactly that.
Now, while there are countless ways to improve (or screw up) those models, their efficacy ultimately hinges on the quality of data we input. This, in itself, presents its own set of challenges. Here in this story, we delve into one pivotal problem concerning this data, in light of a new paper (Da Re et al. 2023) that just came out in Methods in Ecology & Evolution (MEE).
The crux of the matter lies in the fact that it is considerably more straightforward to determine where a species currently resides than to pinpoint where it does not. Many of the easiest methods for recording species observations, such as the popular iNaturalist app, primarily furnish information about where species are found.
However, the shadowy realm of where a species is absent poses a greater challenge. To ascertain the areas devoid of a particular species, more intricate monitoring techniques become necessary. These techniques often involve the establishment of vegetation monitoring plots, which allow scientists to systematically survey an area and deduce the absence of the species of interest. Nevertheless, even with these more labour-intensive tools, certainty in declaring the absence of a species can remain elusive – but that’s a separate story in its own right.
Obtaining presence-absence data is much more labor-intensive than presence-only data, as you have to ensure you have looked everywhere. Picture: vegetation monitoring plot in northern Sweden
Distribution models need ‘absences’ to run, however. Thus, in situations where actual absence data from the field is scarce, a common practice is to generate what are known as “pseudo-absences.” Essentially, this entails selecting a set of locations where a species was not observed and treating them as surrogate absence points. However, the pivotal aspect we address in this story today is that the method used to choose these pseudo-absences can significantly impact the quality of your model.
In our recent paper featured in MEE, we introduce a new way to select these pseudo-absences: not just randomly in space. Instead of a haphazard geographical selection, our method, termed the ‘uniform’ sampling approach, strategically identifies absence points in the environmental space.Why? The rationale behind the approach lies in the fact that HSMs explicitly link species observations to environmental conditions (e.g., climate) to predict where a species can and cannot be. Importantly, these environmental variables often exhibit a non-random distribution across the landscape.
The Uniform approach in action, shown here for a ‘virtual’ species, generated for testing (a). We created a PCA of all (or a random sample of all) points in the environmental space (b), and used a kernel around the presences to delineate the environmental space in which te species was present (c). Then we uniformly sampled absences outside that kernel by sampling points within each grid cell of the PCA (d). The result was a set of points with environmental characteristics (e), as well as a physical location in the geographic space (f)
For example, let’s consider a scenario where the climate exhibits remarkable homogeneity across vast lowland areas but presents steep gradients in mountainous terrain. If one were to randomly select points in such a landscape to gather pseudo-absences, there would be a disproportionate oversampling of lowland climatic condition. Consequently, this could lead to a skewed dataset, ultimately compromising the accuracy of the resulting Habitat Suitability Models (HSMs).
Sampling the absences across the range of climatic conditions instead, as we propose here, serves as an effective remedy to this sample location bias (i.e., sampling is skewed towards the most prevalent habitats within the geographical space, as observed in the example mentioned earlier) and reduce so-called class overlap (i.e., overlap between environmental conditions associated with species presences and pseudo-absences).
Easy to say that, of course, but in that freshly published paper we (or mainly: Daniele, Enrico and Manuele, the smart minds behind the paper) put these ideas to the test. The findings resoundingly endorse our approach: the ‘uniform’ environmental sampling method significantly reduces sample location bias and class overlap without sacrificing predictive performance. As such, it ensures that we can gather pseudo-absences adequately representing the environmental conditions available across the study area.
One of several figures in the paper hammering home the message that the Uniform approach is an improvement. Here, the reduction of class overlap is shown as compared with two other sampling methods in the geographical space.
Importantly, we go further than just sharing those insights. We also provide an R-package with the essential functions to implement the Uniform sampling method in your own workfloy. So, if you find yourself grappling with the challenges posed by presence-only species observation data when fueling your models, we encourage you to explore the new ‘USE’-package to collect a fair bunch of pseudo-absences!
Lake Törnetrask, Abisko Research Station, Abisko, Sweden
Narvik, Norway
Phyllodoce caerulea
Summer in the Skjomen valley, northern Norway
Lake Torneträsk, Abisko, Sweden
Narvik, Norway
Pinus sylvestris, Narvik, Norway
Laktatjakka valley
Hallerbos 2017
Young bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) surrounded by flowers of yellow archangel (Lamium galeobdolon)
The common bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), the signature flower of the Hallerbos
Single bluebell flower surviving on a wetter spot, as indicated by the field of wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
A really wet patch of forest, with giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) in a field of wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
Wild garlic (Allium ursinum) in the Hallerbos flowers a bit later than the bluebells, yet this one was already in full bloom
A bumblebee visiting yellow archangel (Lamium galeobdolon)
A bumblebee visiting yellow archangel (Lamium galeobdolon)
Wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
Wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
Weirdly beautiful, the inflorescence of pendulous sedge (Carex pendula), typical for the wettest spots in the forest
Weirdly beautiful, the inflorescence of pendulous sedge (Carex pendula), typical for the wettest spots in the forest
A little stream in the Hallerbos, surrounded by endless fields of wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
The herb-paris (Paris quadrifolia), less common in the forest
Wild garlic (Allium ursinum)
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Weirdly beautiful, the inflorescence of pendulous sedge (Carex pendula), typical for the wettest spots in the forest
Another one from the wet plots: large bitter-cress (Cardamine amara)
Another one from the wet plots: large bitter-cress (Cardamine amara)
Young beech leaves, as soon as they are fully grown, spring in the understory is over
A beech forest without understory, most likely too dry and too acid for any survivors
A young beech seedling (Fagus sylvatica), looking nothing like a beech, yet everything like a tiny dancer
Young beech seedling (Fagus sylvatica)
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Mountain melick (Melica nutans), a grass in the most amazing green
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) in a rare patch of mountain melick (Melica nutans), a grass in the most amazing green
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
Montpellier 2017
The entrance to the cathedral of Montpellier
The cathedral of Montpellier
The entrance to the cathedral of Montpellier
The cathedral of Montpellier
Narcissus poetics
The cathedral of Montpellier
The botanical garden of Montpellier
The botanical garden of Montpellier
The botanical garden of Montpellier
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Brackish Camargue vegetation
A typical lagune
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Camargue horses
Camargue horses
Camargue horses
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Camargue horses
Brackish Camargue vegetation
Little egret in the evening sun
Flamingo’s in the evening sun
A typical lagune
Dandelion fuzz
Grass lily
Grass lily
Dandelion fuzz
Veronica in a sea of poplar fluff
Euphorbia in a sea of poplar fluff
Poplar
Gare du Midi, Brussels
Gare du Midi, Brussels
Gare du Midi, Brussels
Gare du Midi, Brussels
Sweden autumn 2016
Autumn in Abisko
Yellow leaves of mountain birch, with lake Torneträsk in the background.
Lapporten, the gate to Lapland, in Abisko
Rain blowing over the Abisko National Park
The colours of the north: red fireweed and yellow mountain birches, with lake Torneträsk on the background
Yellow leaves of mountain birch, with lake Torneträsk in the background.
Rain on the background, the ski lift in Abisko on the foreground
The steep slope of mount Nuolja on a dramatic looking morning
The beautiful colors of lake Torneträsk in Abisko
A little stream on top of the mountain, with a view on Lapporten, the gate to Lapland
Well, that is a beautiful table with a nice view on lake Torneträsk in Abisko
Our little experiment on top of the mountain in Abisko, with a view on Lapporten
Autumn in Abisko is extremely colorfull
The ski lift with a view on Abisko National Park and Lapporten
Hiking dowhill towards lake Torneträsk
This green is greener than the greenest green: moss on top of mount Nuolja
Well, that is a beautiful table with a nice view on lake Torneträsk in Abisko
The ski lift with a view on Abisko National Park and Lapporten
The ski lift with a view on Abisko National Park and Lapporten
The most beautiful hiking trail of the world: Nuolja in Abisko
Angelica archangelica, often the biggest plant of the Arctic
The most beautiful hiking trail of the world: Nuolja in Abisko
Cirsium helenioides, the melancholy thistle
Hiking down mount Nuolja
The steep slope of mount Nuolja on a dramatic looking morning
The colours of the north: red fireweed and yellow mountain birches, with lake Torneträsk on the background
The prettiest yellow and blue: autumn in Abisko
Fireweed, Epilobium angustifolium
Campanula or bellflower, I think ‘uniflora’
Vaccinium myrtillus
Cornus suecica, the prettiest red of the world
Hieracium alpinum, alpine hawkweed
Carex atrata, one of my favourite sedges
Alpine clubmoss, Diphasiastrum alpinum
Agrostis capillaris, bentgrass
Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
Anthoxanthum odoratum, sweet vernal grass, fully grown and mature
Snow scooter trail
Our plot in the mids of a field of horsetails (Equisetum pratense)
Equisetum pratense
Cliff overlooking the valley with the road to Norway
Seedling of Taraxacum officinale, the dandelion, after two years of growing in bad conditions
Poa alpina, the alpine meadow-grass, with its viviparous seeds
Massive flowerhead of Angelica archangelica
Angelica archangelica
Blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) in autumn
A lowland marsh in Abisko in autumn
Installing the plots of our trail observations on top of mount Nuolja
Installing the plots of our trail observations on top of mount Nuolja
Tanacetum vulgare (Tansy), non-native for the high north
Autumn forest down in the valley
The valley of Nuolja to Björkliden
Summer on the Nuolja-side
A full rainbow behind mount Nuolja in Abisko
It’s raining in the west, clouds trapped behind the mountains
A strong wind blowing rain from behind the mountains to our side
A strong wind blowing rain from behind the mountains to our side
Betula nana, the dwarf birch, mini autumn forest
Betula nana, the dwarf birch, mini autumn forest
The valley of Björkliden in autumn
The valley of Björkliden in autumn
The valley of Björkliden in autumn
The valley of Björkliden in autumn
Sweden spring 2016
Bartsia alpina
Silene acaulis
The valley of the lakes
Although the alpine zone has been harder for invasives to access than most places, human structures like trails are often an easy gateway for the invaders to get up there. Picture from Abisko, Swedish Lapland.
Ranunculus glacialis
Dryas octopetala
Overlooking the valley of Laktajakka
Western European species like the red clover (Trifolium pratense) here are often listed as non-native species in mountain regions.
Cornus suecica
Ranunculus glacialis
Trifolium repens
Melting snowpatch on a lake
Salix reticulata
A rainy hike
Trifolium pratense
Oxyria digyna
Silene suecica
Eriophorum vaginatum
Rubus arcticus
Amiens
Cathedral at night
Gargoyle planning to eat the cathedral
Sun rising above the water
Amiens is filled with cute little houses
Cold!
View from my office window
Sunny but cold, the Quai Bélu
Frozen mirror
Cathedral seen from the frozen Parc Saint-Pierre
Winter sun on the Place du Don
Cathedral at night
View from my office window
Le Club d’Aviron in winter weather
Nice architectural curve
Maria without a shirt
Just outside of Amiens
Cathedral at night
The museum behind the beautiful gates
Cathedral with a glimpse of spring
House on the square before the cathedral
Almost cold enough for ice-skating
Colourful mirror
Enjoying silence and the morning sun
Cathedral at night
The southern side
Frozen to the bone
Sunny but cold, the Quai Bélu
Sweden autumn 2015
Lichen
Sweden summer 2015
View on the 1000 meter plots
Doing research on a cold Arctic morning
Plots flooded by the snowmelt
Flooded by the snowmelt
Meltwater river, racing down the mountain
After a hike, even the most basic house looks cosy. Little hut in the mountains, open for everybody
Snowbridge, maybe don’t cross…
Snowbridge
View from a cliff
Silene acaulis or cushion pink, cutest plant of the Arctic
Two seasons in one image
Steep slope
Hiking down
Narvik Kirche, church of the subarctic
Narvik Kirche
Reindeer on top of the mountain
Narvik Kirche
Summer at the church
Summer flowers
Massive waterfall
Young willow catkins
View from Narvik’s hospital, with lilac flowers
Building a bridge over the fjord will gain al drivers at least an hour
Norwegian fjord
Posing with the water, getting soaked
Minimalistic mountains
Insect investigating our reindeer antler
Catching mosquitoes with our license plate, harvest of the year!
Posing with the plot
Fieldwork on the most beautiful spot of the world
Fieldwork on the most beautiful spot of the world
Summer bridge – still next to the sadly impassable river
Rhinanthus flower in the mountains
Plateau in the valley, beautiful brown
Experimental view from my favourite plot
Salix catkins
Extremely old Betula tree
Waterfall from a cliff
Buttercup is the earliest in spring, here
Rocks!
Alpine views
Views!
Fieldwork
Jumping over rivers
Plot
Golden plover
Angry lemming
Green, the whole north is green!
Snow, so much snow left!
Minimalistic mountain moments
Fieldwork
The research center
Red clover – focal invader
Look at this tiny cute snail!
Massive floods of melting water
Bartsia alpina
Hooray, a toilet!
Dryas octopetala
Lowest elevation plots
Butterball!
That’s a lot of water
Midnight sun is the best
At the lakeside
Beautiful Bistorta vivipara
Don’t fall in the water
Midnight sun
Wild river
Art – made by ages of wild rivers
Baby firework for America’s independence day
Midnight sun at the lake
The Abisko canyon was wilder than ever
That’s a crazy amount of water!
The Abisko canyon was wilder than ever
The Abisko canyon was wilder than ever
Black and white
Stone-man overlooking Abisko
Nothing as soft as a willow catkin
Label and soil temperature sensor attached
I’d drive to the top every day
Reflections
Rocks and clouds
Brave little birch
Brewing our camping poison
Basic camping stuff
Camping in Norway
Home-made temperature houses
Roadside research at its best
Norway is crazy
Horsetail is so funny
Little creek in magical forest
Birches, birches everywhere
Beautiful rock, a gift from the river
Another roadside fellow
Lichen
Ready to rock the summer
Collecting mosses
That’s a crazy old lichen
Tiny tiny piny trees, but old, so old!
Ready to jump into the fjord?
Ready to jump into the fjord?
That’s a spiky stone!
Views on Norwegian fjords
Silene in the mountains
Cute little orchid
Skua
Attacking skua, mind your heads!
Watch out for the attack of the fierce skua!
Black snail
New plot!
Still a lot of snow to melt, but this spot was free for a new plot
Reindeer are better than people
Two seasons in one picture
Let’s see what is happening to the balance in mountains! Is this a starting avalanche, or will it last a bit longer?
Cute little hut
Climbing mountains by car
Softest moss in history
Drosera in the marsh
Hiking in no-man’s land
The clouds are coming
Abisko valley
‘Butterball’
Fieldwork in the tundra
Abisko valley
Little plot
Clouds and sun and mountains
Making soup on a campfire with a view
Little creek on high elevations
Skua on the look-out
Melting snow in a river
Rhodiola rosea and the Törnetrask lake
Beginning of spring
Flooded plots, melting snow, impassible wetness
Ferns and horsetails
Chile 2015
Trips to the field sites were sometimes a real adventure, especially right after snowmelt
Lunch made by our local colleague, with funny bread (tasty as well!)