LafranceBartley_4December_2017

Graduate School of Oceanography - OCG 695
4 December 2017, 3:30 PM Corless Auditorium

Ecological classification of a shallow, coastal environment using CMECS

In response to Hurricane Sandy, the National Park Service (NPS) has conducted four submerged benthic habitat mapping projects in shallow, coastal National Parks within the Northeast Region of the U.S, including Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS) in New York. The primary objective of these studies is to provide the NPS with a comprehensive baseline dataset of park submerged lands through the inventory, classification, and assessment of benthic resources and habitats developed through the integration of biological, geological, and physical data. This information will be used to promote resource stewardship and improve the capacity of NPS to initiate effective, scientifically sound management strategies. To facilitate these objectives, the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) framework was applied. CMECS is a Federal Geographic Data Committee (FDGC) endorsed classification system that provides a common language for organizing and describing ecological features in marine and lacustrine environments. The framework integrates four components (geological, chemical, physical, and biological) into a single structure, resulting in a detailed and comprehensive classification output. CMECS was demonstrated to be a valuable tool in the habitat mapping effort at FIIS. Specifically, the Biotic, Geoform and Subform Components were used to classify all datasets collected, develop the habitat map units, interpret potential biotopes, and examine statistically significant relationships between biological communities and their associated environment. The FIIS study also provided the opportunity to propose new classifiers to expand upon and refine the CMECS framework.

Monique LaFrance Bartley received a M.S. in Oceanography from GSO in 2011 and a B.S. in Marine Biology from URI in 2008. She entered GSO as a PhD student in the spring semester of 2015. Her major professor is Dr. John King. Her core committee members are Dr. Susanne Menden-Deuer and Dr. Charles Roman and outside committed members are Dr. Rebecca Robinson and Dr. Peter August.

Question Title

* 1. EVALUATOR FIRST NAME

Question Title

* 2. EVALUATOR LAST NAME

Question Title

* 3. EVALUATOR ROLE

Question Title

* 4. What aspects of the presentation were successful? Why?

Question Title

* 5. What do you suggest to improve?

Question Title

* 6. ABSTRACT METHODS/RESULTS: Methods succinctly identified the methods used. Results are succinct and provide a specific explanation of what was discovered, accomplished, collected or produced.

EXCELLENT: Describes methodology in an organized, specific and concise manner. Describes what they have learned. Relates results to the research question. Results include quantitative data.

VERY GOOD: Discusses the methods or resources. States results only qualitatively.

GOOD: Discusses the methods or resources, but is lacking in specifics. Provides superficial explanation of results.

FAIR: Provides little or no discussion of the methods or resources used.
Provides no results or does not explain why results were not possible.

Comments:

Question Title

* 7. ABSTRACT MOTIVATION/IMPACT: Succinctly describes and appropriately connects the subject and background to the purpose of the research . Provides a succinct interpretation of the results and evaluates what the results mean to the investigation and the field of study.

EXCELLENT: Describes how the investigation, whether completed or not, fits within a larger field or continuing investigation in a clear and concise manner.

VERY GOOD: Indicates main subject and purpose of the research. Provides an interpretation of results

GOOD: Indicates main subject and purpose of the research and indicates why research is important but is somewhat lacking in specifics. Provides an interpretation of results but fails to place results in the larger context of the field.

FAIR: Indicates main subject and purpose of the research but lacks organization, or lacks specific details or fails to make connections, or contains no introduction. Provides a conclusion that specificity or provides no conclusion.

Comment

Question Title

* 8. PRESENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN: Specific introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body and transitions.

EXCELLENT: Organizational pattern is clearly and consistently observable and is skillful and makes the content of the presentation cohesive. Listener can follow the line of reasoning.

VERY GOOD: Organizational pattern is clearly and consistently observable

GOOD: Organizational pattern is intermittently observable. A few minor points may be confusing.

FAIR: Organizational pattern is not observable. Organization seems haphazard.

Comment

Question Title

* 9. PRESENTATION STYLE: Posture, gestures, eye contact and use of the voice. Speaker stands and moves with authority, looks more often at the audience than notes, uses the voice expressively, and uses few vocal fillers (‘um” “uh,” “like,” “you know,” etc.).

EXCELLENT: Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation compelling and the speaker appears polished and confident.

VERY GOOD: Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation interesting and speaker appears comfortable. Speaker uses pointer appropriately.

GOOD: Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation understandable and speaker appears tentative. Speaker reads from text rather than too the audience. Speaker does not use pointer to clarify material.

FAIR: Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) detract from the understandability of the presentation and speaker appears uncomfortable

Comment:

Question Title

* 10. PRESENTATION SUPPORTING MATERIAL: Slide contents, figures, table, supporting material support the presentation and facility the central message.

EXCELLENT: Font is large enough to be seen by all. Information is organized to maximize audience understanding. Details are minimized so that main points stand out. All figures/table clearly labeled.

VERY GOOD: Font size is appropriate. Appropriate information is included.

GOOD: Font size is appropriate. Appropriate information is included. Some material is not supported by visual aids. Colors may be used inappropriately. Layout is confusing.

FAIR: Font size is too small to be easily seen. Too much information is included, layout is crowded, not enough time is spent on each graphic to allow audience to follow along. Listeners become confused.

Comment:

Question Title

* 11. PRESENTATION CENTRAL MESSAGE AND CONTENT: The main point/thesis/bottom line/take away of the presentation. A clear central message is easy to identify and compelling (broader impacts.)

EXCELLENT: Central message is precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable and strongly supported. Speaker provides accurate and complete explanation of key concepts and theories. Listeners gain insights. Information included is consistently accurate. Study is placed in large context.

VERY GOOD: Central message is clear and consistent and supported. For the most part, explanations of concepts and theories are accurate and complete. No significant errors.

GOOD: Central message is basically understandable but is not often repeated and is not memorable. Any significant errors are attributable to nervousness.

FAIR: Central message can be deduced but is not explicitly stated in the presentation. Explanations of concepts are inaccurate or incomplete. Listeners gain little from the presentation.

Comment:

Question Title

* 12. PRESENTATION - ANSWER QUESTIONS: Speaker demonstrates understanding of material and answers the questions asked and is respectful.

EXCELLENT: Demonstrates deep understanding of topic.

VERY GOOD: Answers most questions with knowledge.

GOOD: Has some difficulty answering challenging questions.

FAIR: Does not understand the question or has difficulty answering questions.

Other (please specify)