Download Report

COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/If not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 00-2
FOR NSF USE ONLY
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
NSF DIGG
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e., program, division, etc.)
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
DIVISION
ASSIGNED
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
FUND CODE
DUNS # (Data Universal Numbering System)
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
FILE LOCATION
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
A RENEWAL
AGENCY?
YES
NO
IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Florida
University of Florida
Department of Zoology
Gainesville, FL 32608
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM
ABOVE
ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply)
(See GPG II.D.1 For Definitions)
FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
SMALL BUSINESS
MINORITY BUSINESS
WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Understanding Woody Plant Dynamics in African Savannas: Integrating Herbivory, Precipitation, Soil Nutrients and Plant De-
fense
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
36
August 2008
$
SHOW RELATED PREPROPOSAL NO.,
IF APPLICABLE
months
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.A.3)
VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.12) IACUC App. Date
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.D.1)
PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.B, II.D.7)
HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.12)
Exemption Subsection
or IRB App. Date
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (GPG II.D.10)
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES
HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.D.10)
SMALL GRANT FOR EXPLOR. RESEARCH (SGER) (GPG II.D.12)
FACILITATION FOR SCIENTISTS/ENGINEERS WITH DISABILITIES (GPG V.G.)
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY AWARD (GPG V.H)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
Zoology
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
411 Carr, Department of Zoology, University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32608
USA
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Electronic Mail Address
B.S
2005
843-323-1351
[email protected]
PI/PD NAME
Megan Gittinger
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
NSF Form 1207 (10/99)
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators
I certify to the best of my knowledge that:
(1) the statements herein (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and
(2) the text and graphics herein as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise indicated, are the original work of the
signatories or individuals working under their supervision. I agree to accept responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the
required project reports if an award is made as a result of this proposal.
I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this proposal or any other communication submitted to NSF is a
criminal offense (U.S.Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Name (Typed)
PI/PD
Signature
Social Security No.*
Megan Gittinger
Date
February 18, 2008
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant
By signing and submitting this proposal, the individual applicant or the authorized official of the applicant institution is: (1) certifying that statements made herein
are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is
made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding Federal debt status, debarment and suspension, drug-free
workplace, and lobbying activities (see below), as set forth in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 00-2. Willful provision of false information in this application
and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, the authorized official of the applicant institution is certifying that the institution has
implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual Section 510; that to the best of his/her
knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have been
satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the institution’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in accordance with the institution’s conflict of
interest policy. Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.
Debt and Debarment Certifications
(If answer “yes” to either, please provide explanation.)
Is the organization delinquent on any Federal debt?
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal Department or agency?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or
a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities,” in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including
subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this
certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the
required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
NAME/TITLE (TYPED)
SIGNATURE
DATE
Megan Gittinger
02/2008
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS
843-323-1351
[email protected]
FAX NUMBER
*SUBMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS IS VOLUNTARY AND WILL NOT AFFECT THE ORGANIZATION’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN AWARD. HOWEVER, THEY ARE AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE NSF INFORMATION SYSTEM AND ASSIST IN PROCESSING THE PROPOSAL. SSN SOLICITED UNDER NSF ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED.
Page 2 of 2
PROJECT SUMMARY.
Savannas represent one of the world’s largest biomes and are one of the most important and
widespread habitats in sub-Saharan Africa. Trees and grasses dominate these ecosystems;
however, the dominance fluctuates from heavily woody areas to grassland. Despite a historical
research interest and investment in understanding the structure and function of savannas, we are
unable to explain why some areas are converting to desert and others to dense bushland. Recent
literature suggests that factors (precipitation, soil nutrients, fire and herbivory) regulating tree
versus grass dominance, interact and their strength varies within certain thresholds. However, it
is not apparent how these factors interact at local scales in concert with species-specific traits
such as plant defense to determine plant productivity. This is particularly important given
complex feedbacks that can exist between herbivores and plants. These interactive effects have
large implications for the conservation of these systems considering increasing human
population, climate change and changing herbivore abundances.
The proposed research examines how herbivory and soil nutrients interact across a precipitation
gradient to influence woody plant cover and productivity, and plant-herbivore interactions. The
research will address three specific questions 1) Does simulated browsing stimulate re-growth
of plants?, 2) Is re-growth synonymous with increased forage availability, and will regrowth facilitate re-browsing (and therefore habitat use)? , and 3) Does plant defense
mediate the interactions between browsers and plants across nutrient and precipitation
gradients?.
My research takes advantage of a model system (the Laikipia plateau) where two Acacia species
dominate on two soil types that differ in soil fertility (A. drepanolobium on nutrient rich “black
cotton” soils, A. mellifera on nutrient poor sandy “red” soils, see6) and are distributed across a
broad range of precipitation (400 mm/yr – 750 mm/yr). This research will further our
understanding of herbivore mediated effects on woody plants across abiotic gradients, which can
directly contribute to conservation and land management in African savannas.
Project Summary – Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font-size and page-formatting specifications, see GPG Section II.C.
Total No. of
Pages in Section
Section
Page No.*
(Optional)*
Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207) (Submit Page 2 with original proposal only)
A
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page)
1
B
Table of Contents (NSF Form 1359)
1
C
Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)
(not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a specific
program announcement/solicitation or if approved in advance by the
appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
5
D
References Cited
4
E
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each)
1
F
Budget
(NSF Form 1030, plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
5
G
Current and Pending Support (NSF Form 1239)
1
H
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (NSF Form 1363)
1
I
Special Information/Supplementary Documentation
J
Appendix (List below)
Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal, however, must be paginated. Complete
both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
NSF Form 1359 (10/99)
46
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
Introduction.
African savannas support much of the world’s livestock and wild herbivore biomass
(Scholes & Archer, 1997), are among the ecosystems most likely to be influenced by future
climate change (Bond & Woodward, 2003), and are under immediate threat from human impact
(Du Toit & Cumming, 1999). A mechanistic understanding of the factors that structure savannas
and facilitate the coexistence of woody plants and grasses is a key conservation and management
priority. While the broad-scale drivers of woody plant dynamics, such as precipitation, herbivory
and soil nutrient levels have been identified (Sankaran et al., 2005), how these factors interact at
local scales in concert with species-specific traits such as plant defense to determine woody plant
productivity and dynamics remains controversial (reviewed in Scholes & Archer, 1997). Parsing
the mechanisms underlying woody plant dynamics is a strong priority for several pressing
conservation issues, including bush encroachment (Scholes & Archer, 1997), and the availability
of browse for both livestock (e.g. goats) and native ungulates (e.g., elephants, giraffe, and other
browsing species) within this threatened ecosystem.
I propose to examine how herbivory and soil nutrients interact across a
precipitation gradient to influence woody plant cover and productivity, and plantherbivore interactions. My research takes advantage of a model system (the Laikipia plateau,
see Georgiadis et al., 2007) where two
Acacia species dominate on two soil
types that differ in soil fertility (A.
drepanolobium on nutrient rich “black
cotton” soils, A. mellifera on nutrient
poor sandy “red” soils, see (Pringle et
al., 2007) and are distributed across a
broad range of precipitation (400
mm/yr – 750 mm/yr). Both systems are
classified as semi-arid thorn savannas.
Fire suppression has been practiced by
land managers in this landscape for
decades, and accidental fire histories
are well-documented, eliminating this
important factor as a confound within Todd Palmer
my experimental approaches.
Background.
Role of herbivores / Positive interactions.
African savanna ecosystems provide excellent models for the study of plant-herbivore
interactions from both basic and applied scientific perspectives. Large ungulates consume a
significant amount of the plant production in these systems (Phillipson, 1973; Sinclair, 1975),
and co-occur with domestic livestock throughout much of their range. As livestock densities
have increased over the past decades, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the
direct and interactive effects of livestock and wildlife on these threatened rangeland systems.
Project Description – Page 2
Effects of herbivory on plants have been widely documented. Herbivores have been
shown to change plant structure (branching or thorns; Rohner & Ward, 1997), nutrient levels in
leaves (nitrogen and phosphorus; Augustine & McNaughton, 2006; Anderson et al., 2007), and
secondary compounds (Karban & Baldwin, 1997). At a larger scale browsing can affect primary
productivity (Augustine & McNaughton, 2006; Manier & Hobbs, 2007), plant biomass
(McNaughton, 1984), and species composition (Manier & Hobbs, 2007; Augustine &
McNaughton, 1998; Hobbs, 1996). Whether or not these effects of herbivory on plants are all
happening at once, it is apparent that large herbivores have the potential to play a strong role in
the structuring of savanna systems.
Large herbivory diversity in savannas is considered a function of landscape spatial and
temporal heterogeneity (Bell, 1986). Species can be broadly categorized into a number of
different functional groups: size (megaherbivores, mesoherbivores), forage type (grazer,
browser, mixed feeder), movement patterns (migratory, resident) and gut type (ruminant, nonruminant) (Hoffman, 1989). Each of these groups, which are not mutually exclusive (e.g. some
populations can be migratory or resident), will exert pressure on certain plant types and may also
be in competition for similar food resources. Understanding how these functional groups differ
in terms of effects on plant communities is essential. For example, migratory versus resident
ungulates will exert different levels of grazing or browsing intensity, which may effect the
species composition in terms of herbivore tolerance.
Wild herbivores, their effects on plants and potential feedback mechanism in savanna
grasslands have been well documented. One species of large herbivore moving through a
landscape clips down grasses, which stimulates leaf elongation and enhanced primary
productivity; this in turn provides a more nutritious food source for another herbivore species
(McNaughton, 1983; Verweij, 2006). Not only are herbivores affecting plant structure and
nutrient dynamics, but also they are manipulating their food resources in such a way that
facilitates the coexistence of multiple herbivore species in that space. These ‘hotspots’ are
referred to as grazing lawns and the classic example is the migration of wildebeest, zebra and
gazelle across African savannas (McNaughton, 1984; McNaughton, 1976). A similar pattern of
facilitation between herbivore species has recently been suggested in woodland areas (van de
Koppel & Prins, 1998; Owen-Smith, 2003; Makhabu et al., 2006; Fornara & Toit, 2007).
Makhabu et al. (2006) experimentally showed that elephant herbivory had an effect on impala
foraging. Trees that had been browsed by elephants responded through re-growth and impala
showed a preference for trees previously browsed by elephants.
Facilitation among herbivores through resource manipulation may not always occur for a
number of reasons. In the case of migratory species, resources are separated through space and
time; if this temporal separation was not present then we may see competition among species or
the presence of fewer species because of a less heterogeneous landscape (Augustine &
McNaughton, 2006). Abiotic factors, such as precipitation could also effect grazing lawns; in
areas of low rainfall plants may not be able to compensate and re-growth may be limited (Bond
& Loffell, 2001). Slow re-growth may explain why in some areas we see direct effects on plant
structure by elephants (megaherbivore mixed feeder) and indirect facilitation between other
mesobrowsers (e.g. impala), while in other cases no effect on plant community structure or
positive relationships between other mesoherbivores is seen (Augustine & McNaughton, 2006).
These direct effects of herbivores on plants as well as indirect effects between herbivores
further increase the complexity of factors acting on a local scale. It also provides an example of
why understanding the effects of different herbivore types on plant community warrants further
Project Description – Page 3
research. Long-term experimental manipulations examining the impacts of different functional
herbivores on plant communities using abiotic gradients are needed. In addition to research
directly testing local community interactions, larger scale modeling projects could also
contribute significantly. Although there has been some work using spatially explicit models to
look at herbivore abundance and plant structure (or biomass or productivity) these models did
not to my knowledge attempt to look at different herbivore types.
Plant defenses.
Herbivory can be highly detrimental to plants if they are not defended, causing local or
complete extinction of the species under extreme herbivore pressure (Bond & Loffell. 2001).
Large herbivores have been present over a long time scale in Africa; therefore we expect plant
species to have evolved defense traits that allow them to tolerate or resist herbivory. A broad
range of defense mechanisms has evolved and can be broadly categorized as chemical or
mechanical. Chemical defenses include the production of substances such as tannins, phenols,
and alkaloids, and they deter herbivores by making plant unpalatable. Mechanical defenses
include defense structures (spines) as well as lateral branching (density of branches). The type of
defense a plant has may be indicative of the previous type (e.g. herbivore type) and historical
levels of herbivory (Fornara & Toit, 2007).
Plant defenses can also be studied on shorter time scales and have been shown to
demonstrate changes in strength with varying levels of herbivory. For example, spine length in
Acacia trees varies with levels of herbivory (Young & Okello, 1998; Young et al., 2003;
Milewski & Madden, 2006). Over extended time periods of little to no herbivory we may expect
that plants would decrease overall defenses. This is based on the resource availability hypothesis
within plant defense theory, which states that there is a trade-off between the cost of producing
defenses and how much that affects a plant’s ability to grow and reproduce (Grime, 1979; Coley,
1985; Lim & Turner, 1996). Therefore, we would expect that a plant would only produce
defensive compounds in cases where the cost of producing compounds increasing protection and
that long-lived plants have less of a trade-off.
Ultimately, the way in which plants respond to herbivores can affect plant communities.
Disentangling regulators of plant communities is inexorably linked to herbivores effects on
plants as well as plants responses to herbivory. This aspect of local community dynamics within
savannas is usually separated in the literature. I suggest that these responses to herbivory studied
along side the role of herbivores on plants. Examining these interactions within the framework of
savanna regulators would also provide insight into applied conservation issues such as bush
encroachment, which is usually associated with an increase of unpalatable browse.
Project Description – Page 4
Research Questions and Experimental Design.
This research will focus on three interrelated objectives:
1. To determine if simulated browsing stimulates re-growth.
2. To determine if re-growth is synonymous with an increase in forage availability and if
re-growth facilitates re-browsing (and therefore habitat use).
3. To determine if plant defense mediates the interactions between browsers and plants
across nutrient and precipitation gradients.
Overall Experimental Design:
I will evaluate these questions in a factorial design
using 2 treatments, soil type and browsing intensity, across
a precipitation gradient. A total of 36 plots (1/4 hectare) will
be delineated: 3 replicate plots per soil type (black cotton
and red) x 3 precipitation levels (low, 400mm/yr; medium,
600mm/yr; high, 750mm/yr) x 2 browsing intensities (low,
high). In each plot, 15 trees (540 trees total) between 1.5-2.5
m in height will be marked and GPS locations taken. Acacia
density in the study area is relatively uniform and estimated
to be ~500 trees (> ! m in height) per hectare (JR Goheen,
pers. comm.); treatment trees represent at least 20% of the
total number of reproductively mature trees, which I expect
will be sufficient to detect a response.
Browsing will be simulated on marked branches at
two intensities in plots for two soil types across rainfall
gradient. Simulated browsing (low damage) will be
performed on 10 branches per tree using methods following
Gadd & Palmer, 2001; for high damage browsing, two
entire branch systems (minimum diameter = 8cm) will be
broken. An invisible, non-toxic fluorescent stain Figure 1: Experimental layout of
(RiskReactor®; odorless, taste-less, EPA-approved) will be stimulated browsing. Plots will be
added to simulated browsing branch tips to assess post- replicated across a rainfall gradient.
treatment browsing.
Initial wild and domestic herbivore use of areas will be determined through complete
dung collection within each plot; dung will be identified to species in both field and lab. My lab
has strong background in these techniques, and expert field assistants who are adept at these
methods. The lab has experience in clearing plots entirely of dung; with 5 field assistants, a
single " ha plot can be cleared of dung and piles identified in approximately one hour.
Objective 1: To determine if simulated browsing stimulates re-growth in Acacia
drepanalobium.
Hypothesis: Simulated browsing may stimulate re-growth of palatable browse, but the
magnitude of this response varies with browsing intensity, soil nutrients, and precipitation.
Prediction: I predict higher re-growth and nutrient levels in re-growing shoots in nutrient
rich soils (red soils) and in plots where rainfall is sufficient for growth compensation (medium
and high; see Gadd & Palmer, 2001). Responses will be of lower magnitude where nutrients and
rainfall are limited.
Project Description – Page 5
Measurements: Browsing simulations will be performed at the beginning of each rainy
season (March and October). Branches will be re-surveyed annually for re-growth, including
total branch length from marked points and the number of branch apices. Re-browsing is easily
detectable and will be noted during surveys. I will collect approximately 50g of leaves from regrowth for analysis of leaf nutrient levels (total N and P using Kjeldahl digestion).
Objective 2: To determine if re-growth is synonymous with an increase in forage
availability and if re-growth facilitate re-browsing (and therefore habitat use).
Hypothesis: If simulated browsing increases re-growth and palatability, then herbivore
damage will facilitate re-browsing, consistent with the recent “browsing lawns” hypothesis (e.g.
an increase in habitat use; Fornara et al., 2007).
Prediction: I predict that re-browsing and increased habitat usage will be more
pronounced in areas of high precipitation and nutrient rich soils if resource availability and
defense do not interact with re-growth palatability.
Measurements: Wild and domestic herbivore use of areas will be re-surveyed every 6
months through complete dung collection within each plot and identification in both field and
lab. Prior research in my lab has shown a slow decay rate (~10 months) of dung piles over time,
even in the presence of dung beetles.
Objective 3: To determine if plant defense mediates the interactions between browsers and
plants across nutrient and precipitation gradients.
Hypothesis: Plant compensatory growth and inducible defenses are resource limited, and
will have interacting effects with precipitation and soil richness on re-growth.
Prediction: In resource poor areas, plants will have greater structural and chemical
defense. I predict compensatory growth will increase with resource availability (Coley et al.,
1985).
Measurements: Thorn number and length (mechanical defense) will be recorded prior to
herbivore treatments and then re-recorded annually on new growth. I will use previously
collected leaves from re-growth for analysis of condensed tannins (methods in Ward, 2002), the
primary chemical defense within Acacias in this system (Ward, 2002).
Significance.
Broader Impacts.
Laikipia is a model system for studying drivers of local woody plant dynamics due to its
ecology and historical records of landscape use. This research will further our understanding of
herbivore mediated effects on woody plants across abiotic gradients, which can directly
contribute to conservation and land management in African savannas. Funding for this work will
support the education and training of local Kenyan research assistants; there would also be an
opportunity for independent research related to this work.
Project Description – Page 6
1. Anderson, T.M. et. al. (2007) Forage Nutritive Quality in the Serengeti Ecosystem: The roles
of fire and herbivory. American Naturalist. 170, 343-357.
2. Augustine, D.J. and McNaughton, S.J. (1998) Ungulate effects on the functional species
composition of plant communities: herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 62, 1165-1183.
3. Augustine, D.J. and McNaughton, S.J. (2006) Interactive effects of ungulate herbivores, soil
fertility and variable rainfall on ecosystem processes in a semi-arid savanna. Ecosystems. 9,
1242-1256.
4. Bell, R.H.V. (1986) Soil-plant-herbivore interactions. In: Bell RHV and McShane-Caluzi E
(eds) Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa, pp 109–130. US Peace Corps,
Washington, DC.
5. Bond, W.J. et. al. (2001) Acacia species turnover in space and time in an African savanna.
Journal of Biogeography. 28, 117-128.
6. Bond, W.J. and Loffell, D. (2001) Introduction of giraffe changes Acacia distribution in a
South African savanna. Afr. J. Ecol. 39, 286– 294
7. Bond, W.J., Midgley, G.F., and Woodward, FI. (2003) What controls South African
vegetation - climate or fire? South Africa Journal of Botany. 69, 79-91.
8. Cabral, A.C. et. al. (2003) Scrub encroachment in Argentinean savannas. Journal of
Vegetation Science. 14,145-152.
9. Coley, P.D. et. al. (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science. 230,
895–899.
10. Cumming, D.H.M. et. al. (1997) Elephants, woodlands and biodiversity in southern Africa.
South African Journal of Science. 93, 231– 236.
11. Du Toit, J.A. and Cumming, D. (1999) Functional significance of ungulate diversity in
African savannas and the ecological implications of the spread of pastoralism. Biodiversity
and Conservation. 8, 1643-1661.
12. Dublin, H.T. et al. (1991) Elephants and fire as causes of multiple stable states in the
Serengeti-Mara woodlands. Journal of Animal Ecology. 50, 1147-1164.
13. Fornara, D.A. and Toit, J.T.D. (2007) Browsing lawns? Responses of Acacia nigrescens to
ungulate browsing in an African savanna. Ecology. 88, 200–209.
14. Gadd, M.E., Young, T.P., and Palmer, T.M. (2001) Effects of simulated shoot and leaf
herbivory on vegetative growth and plant defense in Acacia drepanolobium. Oikos. 92, 515521.
Literature Cited – Page 7
15. Georgiadis, N. J., Ihwagi, F., Olwero, J. G. N. and Romanach, S. S. (2007) Savanna
herbivore dynamics in a livestock-dominated landscape. II: Ecological, conservation, and
management implications of predator restoration. Biological Conservation. 137, 473-483.
16. Grime, J.P. (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
17. Henkin, Z., et. al. (1999) Secondary succession after fire in a Mediterranean dwarf-scrub
community. Journal of Vegetation Science. 10, 503-514.
18. Higgins, S.I. et. al. (2000) Fire, resprouting and variability: a recipe for grass-tree
coexistence in savanna. Journal of Ecology. 88, 213–229.
19. Hobbs, N.T. (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 60, 695-713.
20. Hofmann, R. (1989) Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of
ruminants - a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78: 443-457.
21. Hughs, L. (2003) Climate change and Australia: trends, projections and impacts. Austral
Ecology. 28, 423-443.
22. Karban, R. and Baldwin, I.T. (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
23. Lim, W. H. L. and Turner, I. M. (1996) Resource availability and growth responses to
defoliation in seedlings of three early-successional, tropical, woody species. Ecological
Research. 11, 321-324.
24. Makhabu, S.W. et. al. (2006) Elephant impact on shoot distribution on trees and on
rebrowsing by smaller browsers. Acta Oecologica. 30, 136-146
25. Manier, D.J. and Hobbs, N.T. (2007) Large herbivores in sagebrush steppe ecosystems:
livestock and wild ungulates influence structure and function. Oecologia. 152, 739-750.
26. McNaughton, S.J. (1976) Serengeti migratory wildebeest: facilitation of energy flow by
grazing. Science. 191, 92-94.
27. McNaughton, S.J. (1983) Compensatory growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos. 40, 329336.
28. McNaughton, S.J. (1984) Grazing Lawns: Animals in Herds, Plant Form, and Coevolution.
American Naturalist. 124, 863-886.
Literature Cited – Page 8
29. Milewski, A.V. and Madden, D. (2006) Interactions between large African browsers and
thorny Acacia on a wildlife ranch in Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 44, 515–522.
30. Owen-Smith, N. (2003) Elephants and ecosystems. In: Vandewalle, M. (Ed.), Effects of Fire,
Elephants and Other Herbivores on the Chobe Riverfront Ecosystem. Proceedings of a
Conference Organized by The Botswana-Norway Institutional Co-Operation and Capacity
Building Project (BONIC). Botswana Government Printer, Gaborone, 17–23.
31. Phillipson, J. (1973) The biological efficiency of protein production by grazing and other
land-based systems. The Biological Efficiency of Protien Production (Ed. by J.G.W. Jones)
217-235. Cambridge University Press, London.
32. Pringle, R. M., Young, T. P., Rubenstein, D. I. and McCauley, D. J. (2007) Herbivoreinitiated interaction cascades and their modulation by productivity in an African savanna.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 104, 193-197.
33. Rohner, C. and Ward, D.M. (1997) Chemical and Mechanical Defense against Herbivory in
Two Sympatric Species of Desert Acacia. Journal of Vegetation Science. 8, 717-726.
34. Sankaran, M. et. al. (2004) Tree-grass coexistence in savannas revisited: insights from an
examination of assumptions and mechanisms invoked in existing models. Ecology Letters. 7,
480-490.
35. Sankaran, M. et al. (2007) Determinants of woody cover in African savannas. Nature. 438,
846-849.
36. Scholes, R.J. and Archer, S.R. (1997) Tree-grass interactions in savannas. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics. 28, 517-544.
37. Sinclair, A.R.E. (1975) The Resource Limitation of Trophic Levels in Tropical Grassland
Ecosystems. The Journal of Animal Ecology. 44, 497-520.
38. van de Koppel, J. and Prins, H.T. (1998) The importance of herbivore interactions for the
dynamics of African savanna woodlands: a hypothesis. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 14, 565576.
39. van Langevelde, F. et. al. (2003) Effects of fire and herbivory on the stability of savanna
ecosystems. Ecology. 84, 337-350.
40. Verweij, J.T. et. al. (2006) Grazing lawns contribute to the subsistence of mesoherbivores on
dystrophic savannas. Oikos. 114, 108-116.
41. Ward, D., and Young, T.P. (2002) Effects of large mammalian herbivores and ant symbionts
on condensed tannins of Acacia drepanolobium in Kenya. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 28,
921-93.
Literature Cited – Page 9
42. Young, T.P. and Okello, B. (1998) Relaxation of an induced defense after exclusion of
herbivores: spine length in Acacia drepanolobium. Oecologia. 115, 508-513.
43. Young, T.P. et. al. (2003) Effects of natural and simulated herbivory on spine lengths of
Acacia drepanolobium. Kenya. Oikos. 101, 171-179.
Literature Cited – Page 10
Megan Cathleen Gittinger
Department of Zoology, University of Florida
411 Carr, Gainesville FL, 32611-8525
[email protected]
Professional Preparation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
University of Florida
Employment:
• 08/2007 - present
• 08/2007 - present
• 11/2005 - 05/2007
• 04/2005 - 08/2005
•
•
•
02/2005 - 04/2005
09/2005 - 11/2005
08/2003 - 12/2003
08/2004 - 12/2004
08/2002 - 12/2004
Wildlife Science
Zoology
B.S., 2005
Ph.D, in progress
Ph.D. student, University of Florida
Teaching Assistant, Biological Sciences, University of Florida
GIS and Data Information Manager, WildAid Foundation Thailand
Research Intern, Smithsonian Institution, Conservation and
Research Center
Research Assistant, Dept. of Plant, Soil and Insect Science,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Lab and Field Assistant, Biology Dept., Virginia Tech
Field Assistant, Biology Dept., University of Virginia, Mountain
Lake Biological Station
Synergistic Activities:
• During my time at WildAid Foundation Thailand, I was involved in a broad range of
outreach and training activities including reporting and interviewing local stakeholders,
instructing GIS and GPS application to a range of field and non-government officials, and
providing input on national protected area management. I also co-authored an article on
tiger conservation that was published in The Bangkok Post.
• At Smithsonian Institute, I instructed the usage and application of Remote Sensing
technology to local high school teachers in order for them to incorporate novel science
technology in their classes.
• I trained and mentored several undergraduates while working on my undergraduate
research project.
• While working as a camp counselor, I designed and instructed classes on Botany and
Ecology to students ages 10-17.
Adviser:
Todd Palmer, University of Florida, Florida
Biosketch – Page 11
FOR NSF USE ONLY
5
4
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Florida
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
Megan Gittinger
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
NSF-Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. Megan Gittinger
36
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (
) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (
) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Funds
Requested By
Granted by NSF
Proposer
$64,500
(If Different)
$
10,800
96,800
Field equipment
Leaf nutrient analysis
Leaf tannin analysis
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (
)
COSTS
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
4,000
2,000
12,000
TOTAL PARTICIPANT
5,696.52
15,050
20,746.52
135,546.52
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$
$
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
NSF Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
Budget Justification.
Salaries
1. Principal Investigator: I will be the PI throughout the project and spend 4 months total
each year in Kenya. The remainder of the year I will spend at University of Florida. To
dedicate my time fully to the project, I am requesting a full-time salary (12-months) at
$25,000/year.
2. Undergraduate assistant: I will rely on an undergraduate assistant at Univeristy of
Florida to process field collections, enter data, and assist in data management and analysis
($7.50 / hr for 1 academic year). Exceptional undergraduates will have the opportunity to
visit the field site in Kenya as research assistants.
Travel: Two round-trip tickets to Kenya will cost approximately USD 4,000, totally USD
12,000 throughout the project. In addition to airfare, transportation on the ground in Kenya
(USD 200 from Nairobi airport to Mpala field station) as well as in Florida (USD 100 from
Gainesville to Orlando airport) is necessary. I have also budgeted USD 1000 for domestic travel
to one national meeting per year (for two years), at which my results will be presented.
Materials and Supplies: Supplies for experiments include but are not limited to large clippers,
tape measures, non-toxic fluorescent stain (RiskReactor®; odorless, taste-less, EPA-approved),
dung collection bags, analysis of leaf nutrient levels (total N and P using Kjeldahl digestion), and
analysis of condensed tannins (methods in Ward, 2002). These total approximately USD 4,000.
Other direct costs
Station fees (Materials and Supplies): Mpala station fees for students currently amounts to
USD 474.71 per month. Total station fees are USD 5,696.52 for 3 years (4 months per year).
Kenyan field assistant: The Kenyan participant will be a staff field assistant from
the Mpala Research Centre, who will accompany researchers in the field, act as a lookout
for dangerous wildlife, and assist in field studies ($200/mo for 3 years). For safety reasons,
the MRC requires that all field researchers be accompanied by a station guide.
Vehicle license fees, insurance, petrol, and maintenance: I will be able to use the current
field station vehicle (Land Cruiser pickup truck. The poor condition of Kenyan roads and the
high price of spare Toyota parts makes maintaining a reliable vehicle relatively expensive,
but the vehicle is critical to my ability to conduct this project in an efficient and safe manner.
Based on my lab’s many years of experience in Kenya, I anticipate that it will cost
approximately $200 per month to help pay for license, insurance, maintainence, and fuel the
project’s field vehicle.
Miscellaneous: Visa fees ($50/ visit/person) and costs of frequent communication between
project personnel in Kenya and the U.S. (mail, telephone, and FAX; $400) are
included in this category. In addition, I will need to contribute to the renewal of the 2year Kenya Research Clearance at a cost of $100.
Budget Justification - Page 12
Current and Pending Support
(See GPG Section II.D.8 for guidance on information to include on this form.)
The following information should be provided for each investigator and other senior personnel. Failure to provide this
information may delay consideration of this proposal.
Other agencies (including NSF) to which this proposal has been/will be submitted.
Investigator: Megan Gittinger
Support:
Current
Pending
Submission Planned in Near Future
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
*If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for immediately preceding funding period.
NSF Form 1239 (10/99)
5
5
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT & OTHER RESOURCES
FACILITIES: Identify the facilities to be used at each performance site listed and, as appropriate, indicate their capacities, pertinent
capabilities, relative proximity, and extent of availability to the project. Use “Other” to describe the facilities at any other
performance sites listed and at sites for field studies. Use additional pages if necessary.
Laboratory: Mpala Research Station
The Mpala Research Centre (MRC) is a facility for scientific research, education, and training in central Kenya.
Clinical:
Animal:
Computer:
Office: University of Florida, Department of Zoology.
Other:
MAJOR EQUIPMENT: List the most important items available for this project and, as appropriate, identify the location and
pertinent capabilities of each.
OTHER RESOURCES: Provide any information describing the other resources available for the project. Identify support services
such as consultant, secretarial, machine shop, and electronics shop, and the extent to which they will be available for the project.
Include an explanation of any consortium/contractual/subaward arrangements with other organizations.
5
6
NSF Form 1363 (10/99)