---
# System prepended metadata

title: ESA practice talks - 24 July 2019
tags: [D3 meeting, summer 2019]

---

# ESA practice talks - 24 July 2019

###### tags: `summer 2019` `D3 meeting`

- 15 minutes of talking, 5 minutes of questions/transition period
- audience: ecologists - mostly terrestrial

## Sara: Microbiomes reduce their host's sensitivity to interspecific interactions

- Session: species interactions
- focus on intro (broad but focused picture) and transition into project?

Notes:
- intro - what was #1 (in terms of phytoplankton as model system)
    - Were there two #2s?
    - SLJ:For an ecology audience you need to start with Chesson/coexistence first, then Hutchinson's paradox, ecological importance, and feasibility in lab. 
- You say measurement of fitness in the beginning, waiting to make sure you define this later...
    - SLJ: just mention multiple generations, no need to say fitness
- The Chesson model - is that specific to phytoplankton - hard to tell from description
- can probably take "phytoplankton as model system" away and replace with subheader when bringing in new equations and such
    - Agree
- I feel like I missed the knowledge gap involving traits that was supposed to set you up for the microbiome argument
- The parallel between rhizo and phyco is great!
- I wonder if it might be better to first talk about Chesson's framework, then about how microbiome affects euk hosts (generally, not phytopl specific), but how this is not considered thus far, leading to your question: how do microbiomes change these measures of species interactions? Then introduce the system.
- bring in each of the Seymour "sphere" interactions as you mention them?
    - I like that idea!

- Why was 16S qPCR "attempted"? - lack of success means lack of bacteria? - could be extra slide altogether
- Wonder if fitness effects of resident lab culture bacteria  needs to be presented? Could skip this in case needed for time constraints, but keep the slide handy in case of questions
- bring in heat map in growth slide after establishing method?
- mutual invasibility experiments: use same color for algal species as in the groiwth curves (red vs blue)
    - And make sure to use the whole figure (MML)
- Variable effects on density - can you move through these slides as if you're answering a subquestion? I feel like we've moved away from your questions
    - maybe separate out xenic and axenic at first - slow walk through of the first plot?
- LOVE the wrap up bar graph, great job breaking it down
    - you might not need to make a whole new slide after the bar graph
- at the end - wondering whether the term "invader" is best for the introduced species, when you mention that microbiome can facilitate co-existence

Comments:
- take out slide with PCR
- AJ typos: extend instead of extent? and xenic 'lgae' (without a)
- font too small for euk species interactions
- heat map too small BUT SUPER COOL!!!
- verifying that bac taxa inhabit - colors mean different things. You could change bacterial isolates colors so they don't match the heatmap colors. Could add slopes to graph with corresponding colors to the heat map, take off the title, make the setup smaller in size, VJD suggests taking out the 'long-term culture collection' and keep the rest as +/- and use the term community 
- variable effects on density - VJD suggests leaving the axenic ones 
- host-associated bacteria facilitate algal invasion when rare: 1) we have two cases of competition, only axenic? (explain y-axis) and then 2) here we test them (new y-axis)
- testing effect of host microbiomes: Rachel suggests blocking out invader; could also not double it for the w/ microbes; increase size of equation
    - VJD: could show hypothesis in graph form with the equation and then take the equation over to the rate of exponential growth per day
- check legends on microbiomes have variable effects and take out independent growth rate of hosts 
## Kathryn: Host-microbiomes alter competitive interactions between harmful bloom-forming cyanobacteria and geen algae

- Session: competition
- focus on intro and bridging larger relevence with competition, some resolution at the end

Notes:
- Intro
- Don'think everyone will know Lake Erie by sight, might want more zoomed out image (and add scale bar) of great lakes
- Why is the USA not red (bloom + toxin) in the Harke figure?
- Minor point: use sans serif fonts (so no times new roman, rather Arial like (rounded letters) for visual presenations - mostly ok, just on the bloom succession figure I noticed some Times new roman, also on slide before culture engineering)
- Make sure to italicize genus-species names
- establishing that the blooms are a competitive interaction in the first place - successional pattern slide gets to it, but it's after stating that there is a competitive interaction
- Micro blooms are heterogenous and genetically diverse: label Lake Erie
- rhizo analogy: is shared taxa important?
- can you give yourself a reminder to say that microbiomes have been absent from competition experiments? This is your contribution to a knowledge gap, right?
- Careful with wording: Two strains of Microcystis, not different species. 
- don't forget to italicize species names :P
- Not sure that you need to layout how you do the culture engineering, could probably cut down if you're short on times
- FCM: maybe pause a little longer here: this is a new method for many, perhaps tell them why (problem = difficult and time-consuming to do with microscopy, solution: FCM can detect phenotyupic features such as morphology and size as well as differences in autofluorescence - integrateing all dimenasions of data generated by FCM can be used to determine how much of each species there is at any time point in the co-culture)
- Did you mention they are morphologically indistinguishable?
- The flow workflow is pretty intense
- Microbiomes had mixed effects: this is the first time you say carrying capacity, can you drop those words in earlier so we know why you're looking at that?
- Microbiomes alter phyto growth: This is the first itme that we go back to your question, but most of your audience will have probably forgotten at this point
- You can just say ELISA, probably don't need it on the slide
- WHOA! I missed the trend. Stay much longer on this slide
- the Yves figure is a lot, maybe show just the tree? x2
- Just show they are phylogenetically distant, and lots of things could be different. 
- I don't know if people are used to seeing genes laid out like you have on the slide
- The table is AWESOME! AND SO ARE YOU!
- 

Comments:
- Nikesh suggests global --> successional --> LE
- Global then narrow down to one of the most well known instances is 2014 shut down in Toledo, USA. 
- link the competition with the succession "how is microcystis such a good competitor?"
- instead of 'overtake and persist', say outcompete? 
- Potentially move question to before succession and then use the potential drivers as a knowledge gap 
- VJD described his ASM setup with How does this single species persist all over the world?
    - give background from Sara's paper and the different microbes 
    - bring the genetic variability and microbes as contributors to toxin production
    - 
- Don't say 'conclusion' unless it's really the end. Maybe just skip the wrap up from experiment 1. 
- Sig diff * for microbiomes had mixed effects on fitness
- gganimate to have the points come in in stages. 
-      nVJD suggests adding the table (partial) after the microbiomes alter phyto growth (first experiment, like what you have for the second experiment with the mutant).
- Toxin/non-toxic to successional pattern
- 