Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a loud voice from the fringes.
Also preserved in our archive (Daily updates!)
A long read about a consistently quoted covid minimizer who may en up in charge of the NIH. The pro-infection rhetoric that has recently been strenghtening antivax sentiment in general society is mostly his fault.
By Walker Bragman
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that a top contender for Donald Trump’s new National Institutes of Health director was Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a health economist known for his pro-infection advocacy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If confirmed, the controversial professor will oversee the largest funder of biomedical and behavioral research on the planet.
As the new Trump administration takes shape, each appointment has been seemingly more fraught than the last. For example, on Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz, who had previously been caught up in a Department of Justice sex trafficking investigation, was announced as the choice for Attorney General. The next day, anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy Jr. was announced for Health and Human Services Secretary. Kennedy, who has mused that COVID-19 was genetically engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews, suggested that chemicals in water are turning children gay or transgender, and falsely claimed vaccines cause autism, is an ally of Bhattacharya.
The Stanford professor is likely among the most extreme of the lot. While, as The Post noted, Bhattacharya has never held a position managing any position overseeing a large bureaucratic organization, he has been a central figure in an organized, well-funded campaign by the political right to undermine public health in America that has been raging since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bhattacharya has spent years arguing in favor of “natural,” or infection-acquired, immunity and casting doubt on vaccines and government efforts to control the worst public health crisis in a century, bolstering the position of GOP politicians and right-wing dark money groups. He has even spread conspiracy theories about the very agency he is on the verge of leading, alleging that a small number of top bureaucrats have been using funding to stifle dissent.
Should he be confirmed, Bhattacharya will surely inject unscientific right-wing ideology into the very heart of the agency responsible for leading the fight against infectious diseases.
Infection Advocate
Bhattacahrya first taste of the national spotlight came in the spring of 2020. In March that year, he co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial arguing against lockdowns and making the case that COVID was less dangerous than public health authorities were predicting.
“If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified,” it read. “But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.”
That article preceded the release of pre-print study Bhattacharya co-authored purporting to show that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was far more infectious—and less deadly—than the global scientific community was warning. The study’s flaws, from methodological issues to undisclosed funding from the founder of JetBlue, a vocal critic of COVID lockdowns, were quickly revealed. Nevertheless, the paper was hugely influential on the political right and its findings not only impacted policy in the U.S. but abroad as well in countries like the UK.
Several months later, Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely rebuked, discredited document calling on governments and scientists to reject large-scale COVID mitigation policies in favor of “focused protection” for the elderly. The idea was that by allowing widespread infection of the rest of the population, herd immunity could be achieved quickly and with minimal disruption to the economy. World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the plan “unethical” and 14 major public health organizations published an open letter denouncing it.
The document itself was written and signed at a conference hosted by a libertarian think tank called the American Institute for Economic Research, a month ahead of the 2020 election. It added a scientific veneer to the public health approach preferred by the Trump administration and right-wing groups like The Heritage Foundation, which saw lockdowns as a greater threat than the virus itself. Planning for the event had taken place over the summer and involved the Trump administration directly through health policy adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, who, like Bhattacharya, was affiliated with the Hoover Institution. Atlas helped secure passage to the U.S. for UK-based declaration co-author Dr. Sunetra Gupta under the pretext of a meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
While the declaration did little to help Trump’s 2020 prospects, it did propel Bhattacharya to right-wing stardom. He has used his megaphone to continue to evangelize the benefits of mass infection and the harms of government efforts to curb the spread of a deadly virus.
Despite the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would go on to kill more than 1.2 million Americans and leave millions more suffering long COVID, Bhattacharya never changed his position on lockdowns and mitigations. His false and misleading statements about government efforts to curb the spread of the virus are too numerous to list here, though Bhattacharya has blamed “lockdowns” for all manner of ills, including possibly even Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He has also asserted that masks do not work and harm child development without an expertise on the matter and was an early advocate to reopen schools with no mitigation measures in place.
Conspiracy Theories
While the Great Barrington Declaration was not itself explicitly anti-vaccine, its central premise—that reopening could safely occur without them—has made Bhattacharya a natural ally of the anti-vax movement. Over time, the professor has moved steadily in their direction. He has repeatedly claimed, for example, that the small risks associated with COVID vaccines outweigh their benefits for young people. In a particularly ill-timed op-ed, he called universal vaccination in India “unethical” on the grounds that a majority of Indians had natural immunity, writing that “for recovered Covid patients…the vaccines provide no benefit and some harm.” Incredibly, several months later, in a piece making the same case for the U.S., he argued that mandating vaccines here would deny doses to countries in need of them, including India.
In September 2022, Bhattacharya misleadingly claimed that the new bivalent boosters were insufficiently tested and alleged that the CDC and FDA were “flying blind.”
The professor has also spoken at events with anti-vaxxers like millionaire Steve Kirsch, who asserts that the shots are responsible for millions of deaths. In March, Bhattacharya spoke at the vice presidential announcement event for Robert Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential campaign.
Important Context readers will also recall that Bhattacharya was the organizer of a recent health policy symposium at Stanford seemingly aimed at rewriting pandemic history to vindicate fringe positions adopted by the political right. The event was stacked with conspiracy mongers and anti-vaccine voices like Alex Berenson.
Beyond his promotion of anti-vaccine narratives, Bhattacharya has also pushed the unsupported claim that COVID emerged from a lab leak and claimed that Dr. Fauci was involved in a cover-up. The professor recently joined the board of directors of BioSafety Now, a controversial scientist group pushing the lab leak origin story for COVID despite evidence consistently pointing to zoonosis.
Bhattacharya has long held that the mainstream rejection of his ideas is not a reflection of their scientific merit, but rather the result of “censorship” by key public health officials including Dr. Anthony Fauci and former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, who communicated privately over email about rebutting the Great Barrington Declaration. He has baselessly claimed that academics self-censor to get NIH funding for their research, suggesting that top bureaucrats like Collins used their positions to enforce their personal beliefs.
Political Operative
Bhattacharya’s contrarian views and pro-infection advocacy may have alienated him from the mainstream of public health, but they have earned him powerful allies, including, as The Post noted, billionaires Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, who has supported his censorship claims.
Bhattacharya has also been a favorite in the world of right-wing dark money, having written for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with ties to billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, been cited by the Heritage Foundation, and spoken before the secretive, influential Christian Right group Council for National Policy, which connects activists with big money.
The professor holds titles at organizations like the Hoover Institution, where he is a senior fellow (courtesy). He occupies various roles at Collateral Global, a UK-based charity focused on opposing lockdowns, including editor-in-chief and scientific adviser. He is a contributing author to the Australia-based Australians for Science and Freedom.
In the past, Bhattacharya was a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute when it was formed in 2021. He was part of the institute’s Norfolk Group, which put together a roadmap for a congressional COVID inquiry that mirrored a similar document produced by Heritage weeks earlier. This month, he was a speaker at Brownstone’s recent annual conference. When the Trump-allied Hillsdale College launched its Academy for Science and Freedom, Bhattacharya was one of the first scholars named. The professor was also on the scientific advisory board of the international pandemic denial group PANDA.
Bhattacharya has been awarded with various honors for his work by dark money groups. In April, for example, he won the $250,000 Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of right-wing causes. Last month, a new group called the American Academy of Sciences and Letters, which is tied to a larger organization working to establish conservative beachheads on college campuses, gave him an intellectual freedom medal.
Republican politicians have unsurprisingly gravitated to Bhattacharya. The professor personally advised Trump in the summer of 2020 and has been a close adviser and ally of Ron DeSantis. Despite his advocacy for “focused protection,” Bhattacharya stood with the Florida governor as he defended a policy of excluding elderly incarcerated from vaccine prioritization, claiming that vaccinating the population would be pointless given that the virus had already spread through the prisons.
“If someone who is older has already had an infection, I don’t think the vaccine would help them,” Bhattacharya said.
The professor has been an expert witness for Republican lawmakers in Congress as well. When the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held its first hearing in February 2023, he was one of the first expert witnesses called.
He has also leant his expertise to GOP-led states in cases over their lack of COVID protections, particularly in schools. In those cases, Bhattacharya’s testimony served as a counter to the parents of medically vulnerable children, who argued the lack of safety measures put their kids’ lives at risk.
Notably, several judges have questioned the reliability of Bhattacharya’s expert testimony. In his decision temporarily blocking Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s executive order allowing parents to opt their children out of school mask mandates, U.S. District Court Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw observed that Bhattacharya “offered opinions regarding the pediatric effects of masks on children, a discipline on which he admitted he was not qualified to speak,” adding that “his demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda.”
“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya,” Crenshaw wrote.
Pursuing Grudges
Fueled by his support on the right, Bhattacharya has built up a massive online audience. He has over 544,000 followers on X alone as of the writing of this writing. Seemingly emboldened by this support, he has fired back at his critics, including scientists and journalists, asserting that they have misrepresented his positions.
For example, Bhattacharya has denied that the Great Barrington Declaration was a herd immunity strategy even though the words “herd immunity” appear five times in the document, including in the sentence,“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
After Mother Jones reporter Kiera Butler published an article documenting his misleading statements about the bivalent boosters, he went after her on X, encouraging his supporters by liking posts suggesting she had ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
With pro bono representation from New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a dark money lawfare group that has received funding from Koch to wage a war on the administrative state, Bhattacharya and several other private plaintiffs joined a lawsuit against key officials and agencies within the Biden administration for allegedly coercing social media companies into suppressing their content. The case, Missouri v. Biden—later renamed Murthy v. Missouri—made its way up to the Supreme Court where it was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing, having failed to prove they had been harmed by the government.
NCLA is currently trying to revive the lawsuit.
“What Could Go Wrong?”
Public health professionals expressed grave concerns about the possible appointment of Bhattacharya. In response to The Post story, for example, Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves skeeted, “This is all just getting worse.”
Mallory Harris, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, earned her PhD in biology from Stanford in 2024, had a similar take. “His scientific judgment is questionable at best,” she told Important Context. “As an expert witness in multiple Covid court cases he consistently misconstrued scientific evidence—even going so far as to knowingly cite a retracted study.”
Harris, who led a student group at Stanford to combat science misinformation, has long had Bhattacharya on her radar.
“He has been spreading conspiracy theories about this particular agency for years,” Harris said. “This [likely appointment] is a tremendous blow to independent, rigorous, publicly funded scientific research.”
Frank Han, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist, told Important Context that “while hearing a conservative viewpoint is not inherently dangerous to scientific institutions, Bhattacharya has shown through his actions, that he is entirely unsuited for any job at the NIH.”
“Science even at the highest levels of government, places a high value on humility and realizing when you should change course,” he explained, noting that Bhatttacharya never acknowledged the hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths he said would justice mitigation measures in his March 2020 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Han accused Bhattacharya of trying instead to “cover his tracks.”
“Bhattacharya has never honestly engaged with his prior self, rather now consistently holding the viewpoint that COVID restrictions should have ended sooner and schools should have opened sooner,” Han said.
Robert Morris, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist who has taught at Tufts University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, noted that Bhattacharya would be “the first director in the history of the NIH with no clinical experience and minimal biomedical research experience.”
“He is a health economist who would run an agency with no budget line for health economics,” Morris said, adding that the professor “has repeatedly shown disdain for serious biomedical scientists.”
Earlier in this blog, I did posts on "profiting from a non-profit" because at that time when Grant was less open about the reality that grantLOVE is not a registered non-profit, or a foundation or personal charity - that seemed the criteria to use.
Now we know thanks to updates on the website and occasional references in interviews that it is a for-profit. And not only is it a business, but it is one of several streams of activity that Grant operates out of the same premises, and seemingly alone. Alexandra Grant fine art, grantLOVE, X Artists Books and I suspect additional lines of activity like her advisory role with Futureverse Foundation, and possibly other consultancies and projects, all run without giving any kind of public-facing information on the staff or structure of the business.
Many critics of Grant used this as the foundation for claims of fraud. If we wish to be generous, we might say that for the most part Grant has been very careful to always characterize it as an "art philanthropy project" by which she seems to mean practicing philanthropy as a form of art project, and which she seems to see as linked, at least philosophically, with both her studio art practice and X artists books.
We know, but principally by mining social media posts, the occasional interview, Linked-In profiles, etc. that there are occasional interns, project managers, etc. etc. but for someone who stresses her love of collaboration, Grant does not appear to love to giving credit to the "little people" behind the scenes.
In some ways, this is a tradition in fine art, and very much a current practice in contemporary art. Maintaining an atelier with assistants and apprentices who did part of the work was a given, and today artist like Jeff Koons do not realize their vision themselves. So nothing to see here - but something to think about giving Grant's rhetoric about giving artists opportunities, and collaboration that implies equality.
If it were a charity, we could use charity evaluation tools to assess its efficiency and impact. There are a number of organizations that do this, including Charity Watch and Charity Navigator.
Learn how CharityWatch analysts simplify complex charity financial reporting to give you easy to digest charity reports.
Charity Navigator, the nation's largest and most influential nonprofit evaluator, announced today its Fall Ratings Methodology Update that w
And states, and sometimes cities and counties, make efforts to register, regulate and monitor the activity of charities in their area. I recently posted the regulations for running a poo-up for fundraising purposes in Los Angeles County, for example.
Although in one sense we can't apply these standards to grantLOVE, because it does not operate as a non-profit, we can still attempt to assess a key element of its operations -- it's usual pledge to donate either a percentage, or all, of its profits or proceeds to a specific beneficiary. (Although as I have shown in previous posts, recent merchandising efforts often describe the profits as going to grantLOVE for future distribution to unnamed organizations.)
Charities and non-profits are often rated in terms of their fundraising efficiency, and the percentage of their income that is expended on programs rather than fundraising or overhead expenses. These are two key factors in that rating:
Program % reflects the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed. For example, a Program % of 80% means that the charity spent 80% of its expenses on charitable programs. The remaining 20% was spent on overhead, which includes fundraising, and management & general.
Cost to Raise $100 reflects how much it cost the charity to bring in each $100 of cash donations from the public in the year analyzed. For example, a Cost to Raise $100 of $20 means that the charity spent $20 on fundraising for each $100 of cash donations it received.
Because charities know that donors want as much as possible for their donation to be passed through, they will often try to disguise the amount expended on overhead or fundraising. Consider this statement by Charity Watch on how they attempt to present honest numbers:
"Many charities present their fundraising efficiency to donors, using pie charts or other means, by comparing their total revenue to their fundraising expenses. This method often has the effect of making a charity appear to be a more efficient fundraiser than it actually is. Many of the revenues charities report, such as investment income, sales proceeds, program service revenue, etc., are not brought in as a result of fundraising. CharityWatch helps you to judge the fundraising efficiency of a charity by comparing fundraising expenses with related contributions, not total revenue. Related contributions are funds raised as the result of fundraising activities."
How can we adapt these charity efficiency assessment tools to a for-profit such as grantLOVE?
First, we need to keep in mind that, although it's hard to remember thanks to the emphasis on the good works of those said to receive grantLOVE donations, grantLOVE itself does no programming.
All of its expenses are linked to maintaining the website, overhead, and production expenses. And we don't know what those expenses are.
Second, grantLOVE products - whether limited edition prints, original art from Grant, or jewelry, housewares, clothing, or candy -- have no particular utility to justify their purchase. Consider Newman's Own as a comparison - various food products, some said to be derived from Newman's own recipes for pasta sauce or lemonade and produced by a company created to raise funding for charities and non-profits that Newman favored. But people actually like, use, and recommend the food. And yes there is both a for-profit company and a correctly registered and managed foundation.
Newman’s Own Foundation uses the power of giving to nourish and transform the lives of children who face adversity.
Similarly, although Grant has at least once compared grantLOVE to (Red), a charity formed with Bono's participation, in their case partnerships are formed with pre-existing companies, generally with a high public profile, and limited editions in red are created to fundraise. Again, products people actually want and will use.
(RED) works to make preventable and treatable disease preventable and treatable for everyone.
We might consider, but again I think we have to discard, any similarity to fundraising linked to something like pink ribbons for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, where corporations will promote special editions of their product and promise donations to the Susan Komen Foundation or similar, although the problems that the group experienced could be useful in thinking about current criticisms of grantLOVE.
Months after the Komen Foundation's decision to cut Planned Parenthood funding sparked widespread backlash, the group's CEO still holds her
A marketing expert offers advice on what the breast-cancer charity, and other nonprofits, can learn from the Planned Parenthood controversy.
So, we are in the unusual situation of trying to assess the profitability of a for-profit business that exists solely to try to sell products in order to then fulfill previous commitments to donate the proceeds or profits (not the same thing, see earlier posts) to a non-profit.
Third, because grantLOVE functions as a "doing business as" subsidiary of Grant's personal LLC, there is no information available for how overhead and related expenses are calculated, and very little information on the amount of "proceeds" or "profits" grantLOVE generates, or how and when they are distributed.
Fourth, this lack of transparency, and the arrangement of all of Grant's activities seemingly under a single personal for-profit LLC, cannot help but lead to speculation, and accusations of fraud and abuse in her "art philanthropy project."
Here's a random site tyhat deals with if and how LLC's can deduct charitable donations of various kinds:
Are your business donations to charity tax deductible? Find out whether your LLC can write off business donations to charity in this informa
"Charitable donations include cash donations, sponsorships of events and in-kind contributions, for example, donation of equipment or inventory. Mileage and travel expenses incurred while working for a charitable organization can also be considered business donations to charity.
You can also deduct intellectual property, including patents and trademarks at ‘fair market value’, as well as a percentage of income from certain types of business property for the life of the property or for 10 years (whichever is earlier). Food inventory for “apparently wholesome food” from your business can also be considered for deductible purposes under certain rules."
I assume that Grant's LLC is a sole proprietorship.
"Sole proprietors may be able to deduct charitable contributions made by their business. For single member LLC charitable contributions, business income is passed through a personal tax return. In general the maximum deduction cannot be over 60% of your adjusted gross income (but this may differ in certain circumstances).
When an owner of a sole proprietorship files business taxes as part of their personal tax return, the deduction has to be made through the personal part of the return on Schedule A (not on the business Schedule)."
It has been said, although I cannot confirm, that some individuals who have purchased grantLOVE merch at fairs or pop-ups found that their check was deposited into Grant's personal account -- again, this makes sense if she is operating a sole proprietorship LLC and at the end of the day all of her activities are covered by a personal tax return.
You can and should deduct business expenses for an LLC. Deducting reasonable wages, travel, supplies, and equipment can help you save on tax
Here's the problem -- Grant sells limited edition prints (presumably after paying her printer and her collaborator) via a website or at art fairs or pop-ups, and she also derives income and donations from merchandise that uses her trademarked brand symbol, currently candles, candy boxes, throw blankets, and the occasional household good -- aprons? coasters? How are the profits or proceeds from these sales being calculated?
Presumably after operating expenses have been deducted. And here is where the possibility to abuse, or at least perceived abuse, comes in.
For example. (Drawing here on the website I provided above):
Deducting wages through a LLC is a great way to lower the amount you owe in taxes. For example, if you have an LLC taxed as an S-Corporation you can pay yourself a reasonable wage for running the business.
With an LLC you can also deduct “ordinary and necessary” travel expenses for your business. Travel to and from the office does not count here, but you can deduct all necessary expenses when you are away from home for the “pursuit of a trade or business.” These travel expenses include the amounts you spend for meals and hotels.
Monies spent to rent an office or other equipment required to run your business can also be deducted as business expenses for an LLC.
In addition, other sources confirm that "Intangible assets, like copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, have value to a business even though they don't have a physical form. Businesses can deduct the cost of these assets as expenses over several years using a process called amortization.
Leaving aside the question of whether Grant was being deliberately deceptive from roughly 2008, or if you prefer 2012 and 202`1 by doing business under the grantLOVE name without making it clear that it was a for-profit personal business, how has it functioned?
Because there are two or three ways this can go: it's been profitable, and Grant has scrupulously minimized possible deductions and maximized donations; Grant has leveraged her copyrighted brand trademark to maximize benefit to herself, and minimize the residual profits used for donations, or grantLOVE has produced far more reputational benefits than cash profits for Grant, and to the extent there have been sales she has both profited personally and passed on donations to her advertised beneficiaries.
To even partially answer this question, we need to consider what kind of operating expenses she could be deducting before she calculates the proceeds or profits from an item, or a sales event.
We don't know, we can't fully know, the answer to this question because the answers are presumably on Grant's personal income taxes, and she has not been forthcoming. We'll discuss the whys and wherefores in a later post, but for now let's consider the likely costs:
Does Grant compensate herself, or any others? If so how, how often, and how much?
What are the operating expenses related to grantLOVE? Rent of office or workspace? post office box? storage space?
What are the costs of producing grantLOVE limited editions and merchandise?
Does grantLOVE incur promotional expenses? What might be included in this category? Gala tickets? Travel?
Does grantLOVE try for a standard percentage of the price of each object to be "profit"?
Why does this matter? Because there is a long-standing practice among fundraising organizations to devote most of what they raise to operational expenses, and actually donate only a very small percentage of the proceeds of their events.
This is getting a bit long, and I'll consider these questions in the next post.
Can you explain more about what you did when you cataloged artifacts?
Sure!
First the artifacts are cleaned. Some can be rinsed in water and scrubbed with a toothbrush. Others have to by dry brushed, especially if there's any paint that rinsing might destroy. Some have dirt or ash crusted on that requires scraping off with a dental tool. The cleaning phase is what I've been posting a lot of pictures from lately. Check out my "lab work" tag.
After the artifacts are clean and dry they're put back into their bags, or put into new bags with copied information from the old bags. Information generally looks like the date the item was excavated, what trench/unit and what layer within that trench, the name of the project, and the names of the people who dug it up.
After we've made sure that everyone is in their proper bag, we catalogue the contents of each bag. The contents of bags varies widely, from "two whole nails, three broken nails, two shards of window glass" to "intact Ponds cold cream jar." If there any items with identifying marks, we note that down too. Each bag is given a catalog number. All of this is done on a paper form. Some places use computer systems, but computer systems can be difficult to update and can be corrupted.
Some items are placed in a bag within a larger bag because they're especially noteworthy. Maybe they have a label that we think has good information, a bottle that dates to a specific time period or had a specific use (blue glass bottles are usually for medicine). For these artifacts we'll do research to try and confirm what it is and note down all of the relevant information on the paper form. These items will generally also get their own catalog number so that we can refer back to them easily.
The unfortunate truth is that many artifacts never get to this ideal endpoint of being cataloged. Archaeology as a whole is a little too obsessed with digging things up, and a little less concerned with what to do with all that stuff once it's out of the ground. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault though. For example, an archaeologist doing cultural resource management (CRM) just might not have the time-- we all have to work for a living.
There is a wealth of material that needs to be cataloged and analyzed, which is why I always encourage people to pursue archaeology even if they don't think they'll be capable of excavation. You could absolutely work with existing collections, giving them much needed attention, without ever having to put your body through the strain of field work.
Finally, please note that the cataloging process varies widely, and this is only a description of the process at my institution. There are different forms/systems, as well as different methodologies.
TL;DR Lots of paperwork, a little bit of research, we need more people to work with artifacts that have been dug up but not cataloged.
In my post-modern character in Thedas fic Coiling Time, the time travelling protagonist Malika understands every language spoken or written. In a fantasy world, that’s quite handy, don’t you think?
The obvious downside — When Malika is present in canon scenes from Dragon Age: Inquisition, some of the dialogue is in untranslated conlangs — namely, qunlat and elvhen. I’m not complaining about the presence of languages we’re not supposed to understand; in the context of the games, it makes for an interesting tension that the character (and player) isn’t able to understand every single word around them. However, due to the magic of her time travelling apparatus, Malika is supposed to be able to parse the meaning out of these overheard conversations — which I, as a fanfic writer from Earth, do not. Cheesecake, it would seem I shot myself in the foot.
However, as I see it, untranslated passages of canon are an opportunity to surprise your canon-savvy readers through either decoding that which hasn’t been decoded before, or through imbuing it with new meanings and nuance to suit your needs. Elvhen, especially, is a wonderful conlang in that most words carry many meanings and possible interpretations.
Since I got through this process, and no readers have complained about my unauthorized translations, I thought I’d share how I did it. As an example, I’ll use the dialogue with the spirit guards we meet on one of the towers overlooking the fortress of Fen’Harel in the Dragon Age: Inquisition Trespasser DLC. These are sentences that, even if an Inquisitor drank from the Well of Sorrows, they do not understand — but my poor Malika had to know what the phantom elvhen says. So let’s take a look.
The goal here is to come not up with a translation that is accurate, but one that works for your story. As a caveat, this process goes against pretty much every single linguistics methodology I have ever heard of, and I don’t mean that in a good way. The first step already abandons a lot of what would be considered really important data.
Starting point: get the words down on paper
The first step for me is to get down whatever the subtitling of the scene says.
A game writer friend at another AAA studio shared that the subtitling is usually the writing, as done by the actual writers of the game - it’s oftentimes easier that way to keep them in order, it prepares them for localization and recording, and they can be used to automate mouth movements, even.
The reason I start by getting the subtitles, is that the actor speaking the lines? Barring some fantastical machinations, they’re not fluent in elvhen, and it’s also rather unlikely that the writer of the line was present during recording (been there as well). But do make a note of what the inflection is. It might also not quite hit the mark every time, but it can serve as a baseline of what the mood of the line is.
So, at this point we have the following two lines from the spirit guard:
Atish’all vallem, Fen’Harel elathadra.
Nuvenas mana helanin, dirth bellasa ma.
A branching outcome - depending on whether the Inquisitor took the Well:
Next up, I’ll scour Project Elvhen (P.E.) and the Fandom wiki to find a rough translation for most of the lines and copy it into my document. I’ll pick out any words that kind of make sense as being parts of the translation.
Project Elvhen is an absolutely amazing resource, in that it both collects canon translations and speculative ones (fanon), as well as delves into the grammar of this made up language. However… Based on BioWare Q&A streams (and my own experience with localization management) elvhen isn’t complete nor is it always spelled consistently in the games (if I remember correctly, Twitter discussions suggest that, for instance, apostrophes are sometimes left out). Rumor has it BioWare has its own internal Wiki for keeping track of things and another of sorts to keep track of their conlangs, but that doesn’t guarantee they’re always grammatically consistent.
Of course it’s also possible that some words, especially barks, would just be gibberish, but I still recommend assuming there is an intended meaning and canon translation of eah line, and trying to decipher enough of it to have a rough idea of what the writers might have intended. It also helps to think of how the line is used. Is it a greeting? An insult? A command?
Amae lethalas.
Ama would be used when talking about protecting your daughter.
lethal n. kin, or family, specifically very close kin or family.
as - plural? innumerable? (protect + family) (spec.)
Conclusion: (protect + family + many)
Virthar ma!
vir (a way path, route, or road)
tharia (wheel)
Ma pron. sb. sg. You
Conclusion: (a way + wheel (?) + you)
Na din’an sahlin!
na (you)
Din adj. adv. n. death, dead, no
an n. place
sahl'in adv. n. now, in this moment, currently
Conclusion: (you + death + place + now)
... ‘A way wheel you?’ Not to be too critical, but ‘You death place now’ doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, does it?
Context, to con through text
So, I have a rough translation of individual words. Now it’s time to do the dirty work. At this stage, I start looking at what I want the conversation to say, in the context of my story, and start adjusting the sentences. Nudging, if you will. Choose which option of the different meanings makes most sense.
After finding the rough words that could be some kind of match:
Atish’all vallem, Fen’Harel elathadra.
(atish + alin + vallas, Fen’Harel + ela + unknown)
(peace + stranger + writing, marking, Fen’Harel + be able to + unknown)
I make myself some options, twisting and turning the words:
Atish’all vallem, Fen’Harel elathadra.
Peace, stranger with the mark of Fen’Harel’s permission.
Peace, marked stranger. Do you have Fen’Harel’s permission?
Hello, marked stranger. Fen’Harel has given you the ability to enter.
Nuvenas mana helanin, dirth bellasa ma.
Unless you desire to fight indefinitely, say many permission you
Unless you desire a lengthy struggle, say the passphrase
I am half convinced this exchange is an inside joke of a log in process, asking for your username and password. It would be a very BioWare thing to do.
Ar-melana dirthavaren, Revas vir-anaris.
(I + time + speak disappeared/promise, Freedom + path + countless years)
I promise my years, for the freedom of countless years ahead
I promise my years, for a path to freedom in the countless years ahead.
With this one, I’ve seen speculation that anaris would refer to one of the Forgotten Ones (Anaris), but, that doesn’t make much sense to me in context. It’s also not a capitalized word. So, I went with the assumption that anaris is an alternative spelling of annaris.
Based on how the other lines shaped up, the ending lines that made most sense to me were:
Amae lethalas.
Protect the people.
Virthar ma. Na din’an sahlin!
Have it your way. Die here and now.
And here’s how it looks in context with my final translations:
“Peace, marked stranger. Fen’Harel has given you permission to enter,” the leader speaks.
“Wait”, Lavellan says. “Is this... necromancy, Dorian?”
“Not quite. It would seem the elves bound a spirit here. It feels… old. Very old.”
“What does it want?” Lavellan asks.
The spirit looks at her.
“Unless you desire a lengthy struggle, say the passphrase.”
“That’s elvhen, right?” Sera huffs. “Do your pool whisper thing, yeah?”
“You... understand what he said?” I ask Lavellan.
“Sort of. I never learnt fluent elvhen... but I can sort of feel the meaning, through the Well of Sorrows,” she says, taking another step. “And I think I know which words to say.”
Lavellan looks back at us, but her eyes seem distant. She clears her throat.
“I promise my years, for a path to freedom in the countless years ahead,” she says, but her voice sounds distorted, as if someone else was speaking the words along with her.
“Protect the people,” the spirit replies, bowing his head, stepping aside.
“Protect the people,” Lavellan agrees, as she walks past him and his archers.
In conclusion: the author is dead, go wild
We went through the process!
Now, are these correct translations? No. Probably not. Maybe. Could be. But, more importantly, if they fit and don’t seem wildly out of place, who cares?
The purpose of my translations here isn’t to theory craft for DA4, or go on a deep dive into lore. The purpose isn’t to reveal new nooks of canon to prove my Fan Cred™️ to my readers. No.
They serve their one purpose, which is to support the story I want to tell with my fanfic. For instance, my translation of the secret greeting of the agents of Fen’Harel contains a promise, a pledge. That’s not necessarily correct, but for how this scene appears in Coiling Time, it’s crucial, since it makes this scene a source of information about the willingness of the elvhen to give up their immortality — their years — for the cause — freedom in the countless years ahead. It also makes for a plot point further ahead; Malika really does not want to repeat this phrase, since promises uttered by her are binding.
Similarly, I went with 'Protect the people’ for Amae lethalas, instead of Protect our kind, or Protect our family, which may be slightly more in line with canon — but that would fit the story poorly, so I threw that out. I didn’t want to put the reader on the path of considering Fen’Harel’s bloodline, for instance. All in all, I’m alright with what I came up with; it’s not perfect, but, hopefully, it gets that it needs done.
Another I wanted to be careful with was the tone of the English translation here; is it formal, is it familial. For the guard, I went with a bit of a robotic delivery, since in the way I imagine Coiling Time, the pre-Fade spirits — such as the Archivist — operate similarly to VI in Mass Effect.
Anyway, since I went through the trouble of doing this, I wanted to share some phrases:
Atish’all vallem, Fen’Harel elathadra.
Peace, marked stranger. Fen’Harel has given you permission to enter.
Nuvenas mana helanin, dirth bellasa ma.
Unless you desire a lengthy struggle, say the passphrase.
Ar-melana dirthavaren, Revas vir-anaris.
I promise my years, for a path to Freedom in the countless years ahead
Amae lethalas.
Protect the people
Virthar ma. Na din’an sahlin!
Have it your way. Die here and now.
And for a bonus, a Librarian line as well:
Delltash! Seran Viar Malas Shivera Mellavar!
Keep quiet! Return the loans that are long overdue!
I hope you find this useful. Again, the goal here isn’t to find the ultimate translation, but to lead the reader onto your path.
Part Summary: Y/N has finally broken her silence and Spike is relieved. Then, when he suggests they find a way for Y/N to harness her powers things take a turn, leaving both of them at a loss.
Masterlist
The black cloud that blocks my sight subsides as I slip into Spike’s memories. Then, I lose myself completely in Spike’s mind....
Enraged, I storm into my crypt. Slamming door behind me, I immediately begin smashing everything and anything in my reach.
“You bitch!” I scream to the ceiling and pick up the candle stand beside before throwing it to the far wall at full force. The glass holder shatter against the concrete and fall to the floor. “Wherever you are Glory,” I growl. “I’ll find you and make you pay!”
After Y/N left Glory’s mind and I ran to protect her, she screamed bloody murder before going mute. All I see are her traumatized eyes starring back at me. She won’t speak to anyone, look at anyone... What if I can’t fix her? What if I can’t get her back?
I pant, continuing my rampage as my rage grows. I punch the nearest pillar, making a giant gash. I look down my fist and bloody cuts consume my knuckles. Turning around, I slide down against the pillar to the floor. Tears fall from my eyes as I brings my knees close to his chest. I hang my head low, hiding my face from the world.
“I need her back…” I plead in a whisper, thinking of Y/N. “I need her...”
I snap back to reality, flying up from my laid position, panting for air. Spike is knelt before me, no longer touching me. He must’ve pushed me out by breaking free. He looks at me with a narrowed gaze, presumably waiting for my reaction. I didn’t mean to invade his memories. I just didn’t want him to leave me again.
“I’m… I’m sorry,” I stutter. “I didn’t mean to.”
Spike shakes his head, assuring me it’s alright. “Will that happen every time we touch?” He asks and I notice his hands resting inches from me on the bed.
I swallow hard, still a bit shaken from the insight. “Not if you shut me out.”
His brows scrunch together in confusion, but when we kissed, I didn’t feel you in my head,” he describes.
“That’s because uh... that’s because when you kiss someone you’re so zoned in on the sensation and your uh... your thoughts that you’re- in a way- isolated and internalized,” I explain what I’ve learned over the years.
“Is there a way you can prevent it from your end?” He questions, much to my surprise. “That way we don’t have a repeat of the hospital?”
“There is one way,” I explain with pause, unsure myself. “I’ve heard of psychics who’ve learned to manage it. Some can touch people without a problem. It’s complicated though. I tried to learning when I was with the coven, but I never mastered it. When I slip... it’s sort of like falling. I lose control and keep going deeper until something triggers me out.”
“Do you only see memories?” He rushes out eagerly, moving to sit on the edge of my bed. “How does it work?”
I prop myself up my elbows, shaking my head. “There are layers to it. It also depends on how open the recipient’s mind is to me. When I’m in your mind, I’m living through you basically. If I’m seeing old memories, then I relive them from your perspective. Seeing a memory is the easiest layer to reach. If you wanted me to experience a specific moment, you can project that by thinking of the memory. If I’m experiencing the world through you in the current moment, then that requires concentration of your side. You have to open your mind to me completely. It requires a lot of awareness and discipline because the mind is protective of itself, your first instinct is to kick me. When it comes to seeing your future, that’s highly complicated. I would have to navigate your mind and focus on channeling the images. For example, if I envision you ten years from now hard enough, I would see a flash of it,” I do my best to explain.
Spike leans to rest an arm over my legs. I shift under his touch, afraid I’ll slip.
“It’s okay!” Spike assures me, showing me how the fabric of his coat keeps our skin from touching.
I settle back down, relieved and subtly impressed that he’s already taking precautions.
“Is there a way you could do both?” He asks. “Be in the present moment but read what another is feeling or thinking?” He clarifies further.
Processing the seriousness of his request, I sit up, shifting to lean against my head board. He’s speaking of extremely sophisticated self-control. I’ve only ever heard of leading psychics mastering such skills. It would require immense self-awareness and discipline. People have spent months, years even, in Asia studying the methodologies. The leader of my coven visited the temples on her way to Australia last summer. When she came back, she taught me everything she learned. I tried the practices while in New York and gave up when it became too much. Every time I failed, I entered someone’s memories and saw all sorts of things.
“What?” He asks urgently, noticing my hesitation. “What is it?”
“I’ve... I’ve tried it,” I confess, growing nervous as I remember the constant trials, the countless hours.
There’s a glimmer of hope in his eyes, “how did you test it?”
“Practiced, had friends in the coven touch me and I would focus really hard on not falling in” I mutter, fiddling with the fabric of my blanket and avoiding his gaze.
He shifts closer to me eagerly, “could we try it?”
I know Spike is just trying to help me, to find a solution. Yet, he’s asking for too much. My friends in the coven tried the same thing! This won’t be a one time thing, I’ll fail on the first try. I experienced first-hand the frustration and obsession that forms from wanting control so badly, but failing on the way.
“I’ll fail,” I admit, certain of it. “I’m far too weak to channel that much power.”
“It’s okay if we don’t get it right the first time,” he encourages, reaching for my hand until he stops himself. “I don’t care how many times it takes! I want to do this with you! I want to be able to touch you, actually touch you!”
“Spike...” I exhale deeply.
Overwhelmed, I toss my comforter and climb out of bed. Spike moves out of the way, watching me pace the floor of my bedroom. He’s asking too much of me, of both of us! He’s offering up every aspect of his mind. Every memory, every thought, every emotion, there will be nothing left. In return, I would be accepting the possibility of seeing and experiencing events that could leave me worse off than I am now.
“It’ll take days, months, maybe even years!” I try to reason with him.
“I understand that,” he claims, still up for the idea. “If you’re afraid of what you may see, I’ll do everything I can to prevent the bad part from coming forward!”
I shake my head, it’s too risky. What if I become confused between reality and memory? I mean, it happened at the hospital with Glory! Then, there’s always the risk of falling in too deep and become obsessed with consuming power.
Spike rises from the bed and crosses the room, “it doesn’t hurt me! In fact, it does quite the opposite. When you’re in my mind it gives me a rush- if you can even call it that. It’s like weight off my shoulders,” he describes with a bright grin.
“That’s because I absorb a part of your energy,” I explain. “Everything you’ve ever felt I take a piece of it and carry it forever.”
“So when you saw me turn...” he frowns, beginning to piece everything together.
I nod, “I felt it and took some of the pain from you.”
“Bloody hell, Y/N!” He moves to reach for me, but again realizes his mistake and stops himself with a growl. Growing irritation etches across his features as he clenches his fist. “Why didn’t you tell me?!”
I scoff, is he serious? “Why do you think I was so emotional the other night? I was dealing with over a century of emotions!” I shout in defense.
“For God’s sake, how did you not explode or something?” He remarks, sounding both impressed and concerned.
“Umm, nearly fucking did,” I admit darkly.
He tilts his head back with a deep sigh in reaction to my words.
“I certainly did after Glory!” I add with a brief snicker, making light of the situation.
Spike doesn’t share my humor at the mention of Glory or of what happened. He snaps his head in my direction, looking into my eyes pleadingly. I don’t have the same optimism he has for this to work.
“We could at least try, Love,” he urges in a mutter.
“What must I say to make you understand?!” I snap uncontrollably, turning away from him. “You’re asking for the impossible! It’s like challenging gravity! It can’t be done!”
“But it can!” He yells, “you said so yourself! There are people out of there who’ve done it! We’ll go to them and we’ll do whatever it takes!”
“You don’t think I wish I were normal?!” I shout back. “Spike, I would give anything to be normal!” He forgets that I’ve been dealing with this my whole life. I pause, finding it hard not to cry. “To be able to touch you...” I whisper.
The room goes quiet as the two of us reach a crossroads of our opposition, perhaps now he’ll see that I’m not saying ‘no’ for the fun of it.
“You may not believe in yourself, but I do,” he confesses, breaking the silence. “You’re the greatest witchy-psychic I’ve ever met. If there’s anyone who can do it, it’s you.”
“You hold too much faith in me,” I reply, utterly broken.
“You’re the only thing I hold faith in...” he mumbles sorrowfully.
My lips part as I fall speechless. I would’ve never predicted him to say that.
Abruptly, Buffy storms into the room. “Spike!” she shouts, as though she was looking for him. Then, she notices me out of bed and functioning. “Y/N, you’re up!” She practically squeals and yells for everyone.
“Yes,” I reply plainly, starring Spike in the eye. “I’m back.”
Disappointment plagues his face, his eyes glistening with emotion. I don’t want to let him down, it’s the last thing I want to do. It’s true, I would do anything to be normal, to touch Spike and for us to be normal. However, as the universe has made, we’re not normal. I’m a ‘witchy-psychic’ and he’s a vampire, nothing about this is normal. It’s the most complicated affection I’ve ever felt toward another. Yet, I refuse to ever let it go.
Review of the schools of thought related to measuring tree vitality in urban trees through tree growth, physiological measurements and chlorophyll fluorescence testing
Understanding the health of our urban trees is an important part of any arboriculturist role, but how exactly is it that we can measure this? There are different schools of thought related to the measuring of tree vitality which revolve around tree growth, physiological measurements and the testing of leaf chlorophyll fluorescence. However, measured, the subsequent information from measuring a trees vitality can be essential in some tree management situations. Being able to know the vitality of a apparently declining tree can make all the difference in the decision to fell or retain, if it shows good vitality then there is an argument for retaining as the tree may be through whatever stress or strain has caused the initial decline and may now be in the process of recovering, however if a tree is in decline and shows poor vitality it is likely it will continue along the downward spiral of decline and removal may be a justified option.
Tree Growth
Tree growth as a method for measuring tree vitality is based upon the principle that a tree will grow less if it is stressed or unhealthy (poor vitality) and as such will be smaller than it would otherwise be if the tree was healthy and without significant stresses. There are several different measurements of tree growth that can be used to measure tree vitality.
A measurement of tree height and diameter at breast height have been used for many years in regard to tree vitality. These measurements have been used in many experiments into the effects of various commonly occurring tree stresses such as planting depths and the effects of drought. These measurements are simple and quick to attain and can be carried out by anyone with a basic understanding of how to measure heights and diameters. The methodology is based around the principle that a stressed or tree with low vitality will have a thinner diameter stem and be shorter in height, whilst I cannot dispute the logic or the accuracy of this there are a few issues with the use of this method on mature urban trees.
The measurement of tree height and diameter at breast height has significant benefits on assessing young , newly planted trees in experiments and the urban environment, however when it is used on older and larger trees they are some questions over its effectiveness. Over the course of a trees life it is likely to experience a wide range of external stresses and strains which may vary from natural environmental stresses to those caused by the activities of humans. The intensity and frequency of these external factors may vary from tree to tree within the same street and even more so over the expanse of a city, county or country. As such the tree height and diameter at breast height is likely to be so variable on older trees that it cannot be definitively used as an accurate measure of a trees vitality and this doesn’t include the natural genetic variance between specimens that may have a significant effect on the potential growth rate of any one tree. Of course, extremes will be present and reliable such as an avenue of lime trees all planted at the same time, if one of them is significantly shorter and has a smaller trunk diameter at breast height it is likely that its vitality is lower than its surrounding larger neighbors, however, this could be genetic.
It is important to remember that trees have stored resources and their growth rates partly depend on the previous years stored carbohydrates. As such all tree growth measurements will suffer from time lag, meaning that there is potential for either the reductions in growth rates to be measurable too late after the external factor occurred and subsequently caused significant harm to the tree or the event has occurred and has been ”dealt with” by the tree making the measurement “out of date” and fairly irrelevant as a one off measurement.
It is important to remember that trees growth varies from year to year due to an immeasurable amount of external factors, unless the measurements are fairly extreme one way or another I feel that the usefulness of one years measurements have the potential to be fairly irrelevant within the lifetime of many tree species.
However, what about the leaves? On deciduous trees these are replaced each year.
There are methods for measuring the leaf area of trees and using this as a measure of tree vitality. Leaf area index is the ratio of leaf area to ground area and is a widely used method for analysing the growth of crops or forest areas. It is not really practical or effective when used for individual urban trees. For individual specimens we are able to measure direct leaf areas and combine this with leaf weights to create a ration call the specific leaf area (SLA). SLA is defined as the ratio between projected leaf area and leaf dry mass. The SLA reacts sensitively to many factors that affect trees such as the availability of resources (light, nutrition) and hydraulic limitations and lower water potentials in greater branch heights. Because of this it is essential that leaves are harvested from similar positions within the trees (aspect, height, distance along branch) to ensure accurate comparison with surrounding and other measured trees. SLA is effectively a measure of density and subsequently health of individual leaves. Because leaves are regularly replaced (albeit at different rates for different species) this allows for a more “up to date” measurement of tree vitality. A lower SLA will tend to indicate a lower tree vitality, in studies by Pierce et al. 1994; Cornelissen et al. 2003; White and Scott 2006; Poorter et al. 2009, it was found that trees that are well supplied with nutrients tended to have a higher SLA than the same species of tree positioned in nutrient poor environments.
The SLA of a leaf is highly sensitive to a wide range of factors, many of which may vary throughout a growing season, light, nutrient availability, and as such the results should be compared against many other trees of the same species and in similar growing positions to allow for an accurate result. The impracticality of this method is a significant downside to it, the removal of leaves from different parts of the tree, whilst also being the same positions on other tested trees, will require aerial access (climbing, MEWP) which requires time and money. Unless the tree is particularly valuable or a study is being conducted it seems unreasonable to expect a tree owner to be funding such a investigation when there are many other methods available.
Tree canopy architecture can be used as a measure of tree vitality. It is commonly used by tree inspectors, to be honest it is commonly used by everyone who looks at a tree and states they think it looks “unhealthy” or “that tree doesn’t look right, I think we should get someone to look at it” , although many people are using the basis of this method unknowingly. In 2017 at the arboricultural association annual conference Dr Andreas Roloff presented a methodology of using above ground symptoms as a measure of tree vitality, within which he proposed that the crown transparency and branching patterns of trees are the most practicable methods for assessing tree vitality.
Crown transparency is an easy to learn, fast to carry out and above all a practicable method for tree vitality assessment, it relies upon the differences in the amount of light penetrating a tree canopy and is graded on a scale of 0-3.
Although it has important benefits there are significant disadvantages with this method.
· There are natural variations in crown transparency. E.g Betula pendula allows high amounts of light through its canopy whereas at the other end of the scale Cupressus × leylandii allows very little.
· In deciduous species this methodology is only really reliable for 4 months of the year
· Fructification and weather can influence the results
· Damage to the tree such as branch loss will result in increased light penetration and can lead to result misinterpretation.
· In some trees it is not possible to have 10% crown transparency due to their growth characteristics, which will mean they are at best ranked as 1 or 2 on the scale despite not having any vitality issues.
· Tree age can affect the results
Because of the above issues Roloff proposed that the use of branch architecture is a more accurate measure of tree vitality. He proposed that using branch and canopy architecture we can assess a trees vitality at all time of the year. Below is an image showing the vitality stages 0-3 in relation to branch and canopy architecture.
0 At stage 0 we can see the canopy is dense, there is good crown extension, and the branch architecture is very spear like.
1 At stage 1 the outline is spikey, the outer crown has started thinning, and the canopy has some bottle-brush type shapes at its periphery. There is little or no spear like architecture.
2 By stage 2 the canopy is getting sparser, it only contains short shoots and appears more bushy in nature rather than as a singular canopy.
3 Stage 3 shows the canopy retrenching. The leader has died back and the crown is reducing in size and density.
(the image to the left is originally from A.Roloff presentation at the 2017 AA conference)
This methodology is easy to understand and put into practice, in fact many people utilize its principles everyday without necessarily knowing. Most importantly it is effective for 12 months of the year.
The main downside or at least potential for misuse/ misdiagnosis is that the rough age of the tree should be known and whether the condition of that tree is normal for that age. For example, Quercus robur is a long-lived tree, but is known for its natural retrenchment until it becomes short and squat. If a mature Quercus robur is at stage 2 and is considered to be approximately 500 years old we could consider that to be fairly normal and that unless there is obvious indication otherwise, it is likely entering its natural retrenchment stage. However, if the same tree was only around 150 years old, being in stage 2 would indicate that something is wrong and causing the tree to enter early retrenchment or mortality spiral.
While this is an extremely useful and effective method of measuring tree vitality, I do feel it is also only formalising what many people do when assessing trees already.
Physiological measurements
Electrical admittance/impedance
Shigo and Shortle developed the principle of using electrical admittance/impedance for measuring the vitality of trees. The principle states that trees with a higher vitality have higher moisture content, therefore a higher concentration of mobile cation in their vascular tissues and lower concentration of mobile ions. Shigo developed his “Shigometer” as a tool for measuring electrical admittance/ impedance. It uses two needle probes that are pushed through the bark, cambium, and slightly into the wood. The pulsed electrical current from the meter passes through one needle, through the tree tissues and back through the other needle to the ohmmeter in the “Shigometer” where resistance in kilohms is measured. Because the cambial zone is so moist and contains high amount of cations most of the current flows through this zone. The higher the electrical resistance, the less vital the tree. It is important to have a baseline for which to compare the readings against, to do this at least 20 healthy trees of the same species need to be measured prior to testing.
Harris, Clark, & Matheny, developed the plant impedance ratio meter in 2004, it used two needle probes like the “Shigometer” but instead measured the impedance of an alternating current over 2 frequencies to measure the cambial electrical resistance (CER).
There have been many studies into the effectiveness of measuring cambial electrical resistance (CER) and using it has a measure of tree vitality which have produced mixed results. Effectively there are some issues with the methodology. The reliability of the results fluctuates between different tree species, cause of tree stress and time of year, there is certainly a difference in the amount of moisture within the tree at differencing times of year. Research cited in “The measurement of plant vitality in landscape trees” by Denise Johnstone, Gregory Moore, Michael Tausz and Marc Nicolas, stated that Clark, Kjelgran, Hushagen, and Fiore (1992) found that CER was not able to detect changes in tree vitality when compared against the diameter growth on Liquidamber styraciflua but conversely Martinez-Trinidad et al. (2010) could detect the tree vitality in mature Quercus virginiana when compared to a visual assessment of the trees when their symptoms were acute. A number of other studies produced similar variance in the effectiveness of CER.
In 2006 Gibert, Le Mouel, Lambs, Nicollin, and Perrier found evidence of a direct relationship between sap flow and electrical potential in the trunk of a Populus nigra in the spring, but not so in the summer. This indicates that the time of the year is likely to have a significant effect on the results of any electrical resistance or admittance-based testing.
Gaseous exchange
Carbon dioxide intake and water release take place through tree stomata. The measurement of gaseous exchange can provide an indication of tree vitality. These measurements allow for the estimation of CO2 assimilation, stomatal conductance and transpiration. Research by Epron, Dreyer and Breda in 1992 found that a Quercus petraea suffering from drought stress showed declines in leaf CO2 assimilation, similar results were found on Quercus ilex by Peria-Rojas et al in 2005. If very little gaseous exchange is occurring then it is likely that low vitality is present, whereas high amounts of gaseous exchange would indicate a good vitality and healthy tree. There really needs to be a baseline to compare the readings against in many cases and tests on multiple trees of the same species in the same area would be needed to form any reliable conclusion on a singular urban tree in the absence of some extreme results, e.g. no gaseous exchange. The measurements taken in measuring gaseous exchange are carried out by an infrared gas analyser (IRGA), this is a complex tool to use and is also expensive to purchase, because of this it is primarily only used for research purposes. Gaseous exchange can only be carried out while the tree is in leaf and presumably while the tree is not subjected to some external factors such as drought. While droughted a tree will close its stomata so there is likely to be a notable reduction or cessation in gaseous exchange and water release through transpiration as such testing at this time would not provide an accurate measurement of tree vitality and it would be predictable that the tree would not be in full health, although after the drought event the use of this method could indicate which trees, for example, along a street suffered worse because of the drought event and subsequently may need different management.
Chlorophyll fluorescence testing
Normally a healthy tree will use about 78-85% of the sunlight it receives at the leaf surface for life processes such as photosynthesis. The remaining sunlight is dispersed or reflected. A tree leaf will do this through non-photochemical processes: re-emitting in the form of infra-red radiation (heat) or as far-red radiation (chlorophyll fluorescence). This all changes when a tree is not in optimum health, lowered vitality. For example, after a period of drought the rate of photosynthesis is likely to be reduced, and as such more energy from the sun will be dissipated as infra-red radiation (heat) or as far-red radiation (chlorophyll fluorescence).
Chlorophyll fluorescence is a non-invasive measurement of photosystem II (PSII) activity, it has developed from a fairly novel technique to a widely used technique in plant physiology. Photosystem II is extremely sensitive to the influence of abiotic and biotic factors and as such the measurement of this allows us to understand otherwise invisible physiological changes a plant has/is experiencing and provides us with an accurate measure of how environmental change can affect a plant. The tools and equipment to carry out chlorophyll fluorescence testing have vastly improved over the last decade or so, it is now an affordable piece of equipment that can fit in a pocket or small pouch which connects to a portable computer device such as a tablet which provides detailed and easy to understand data about the test subjects physiological health. Some tests are now so sensitive that they may pick up physiological stress weeks before it manifests as a visible symptom.
Although the use of many modern devices is very simple, the science behind it remains complex. Below is a diagram that shows a simplified depiction of events in photosystem II that allow for identification of the key parameters used in chlorophyll fluorescence testing. It is originally from Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications written by E.H. Murchie and T. Lawson.
A- A schematic figure which shows the electron transport within the photosystem II reaction centre complex. Energy that is absorbed by chlorophyll within this light harvesting complex is either dissipated vie photochemistry, by heat or as fluorescence. These processes are always in competition which allow for the efficacy of photosystem II to be measured.
B- Shows a typical fluorescence trace made on a dark-adapted leaf material which shows how and are formed. The measuring beam of the chosen testing tool excites the chlorophyll but is not enough to be able to cause electron transport through photosystem II. This gives , the minimum amount of fluorescence, reaction centres are open at this point. Once the measuring tool creates a pulse of light the maximum possible yield of fluorescence () can be found. During the pulse of light, the reaction centres are closed.
C- Shows a schematic figure which explains how the transfer of energy and electrons within photosystem II results in open and closed centres as well as the creation of and . The excited state and the subsequent transfer of an electron to the primary acceptor causes a closed centre. cannot accvept another electron until it has passed its electron onto the next electron acceptor (). It should be noted in the context of chlorophyll fluorescence that and are bound quinones and is a type of chlorophyll.
The most commonly used measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence is / where F is the difference between the maximum () and minimum () fluorescence. / is widely considered to be the theoretical measure of the quantum efficiency of photosystem II if all of the reaction centres are open during photosynthesis. The values of / are generally between 0.78 and 0.85 on healthy and non-stressed specimens with the optimal value for most leaves being 0.83.
Chlorophyll fluorescence testing has a vast array of uses within arboriculture from monitoring the health of nursery stock during growth and before planting to inspecting trees suspected to have been adversely affected by changes in surrounding land use or development. The modern devices and tools for carrying out measurements have made this form of vitality testing widely available and affordable and I expect to see an increase in its use in the future. The largest drawback of this testing is that it requires leaves, limiting the time of year when testing can be carried out quite significantly.
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles
The development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) over the last decade or so has created a potential arboriculturally related platform for their use. As UAV’s become more affordable, accessible and are developed so as to be able to carry more complex equipment it was almost inevitable that someone was going to attempt to use them in the field of arboriculture at some point. A UAV with a camera allows the user to quickly view large areas of land, for example some woodland, or view the upper parts of a tree in greater detail than if that person was stood on the ground using binoculars. The images/video is also recorded and stored for future analysis.
It is now possible for UAV’s mounted with thermal and/or narrow band multispectral imaging equipment to be used in the assessment of tree vitality. The ability of a UAV to fly and view a large area in a short time makes it a very versatile tool indeed. Areas of woodland or forest can be assessed in a fraction of the time compared to on foot and individually inspecting each desired tree and a tree or group of trees vitality can be easily compared against the wider tree population. This is an important feature as it allows the surveyors to assess whether it is individual trees that are stressed, groups of trees or even an entire tree population, being able to highlight pockets of stressed trees amongst a forest or urban forest is useful for assessing how species are coping in certain areas.
Aerial imagery using thermal and narrow band multispectral detects the sun induced fluorescence (SIF) or dissipated heat produced by trees during photosynthesis. Any alteration in the efficiency of one of the components will affect the other. Light that is re-emitted by the tree as sun-induced fluorescence is a small emission but is a strong proxy for tree photosynthesis. Tree responses to environmental stress, such as, light, nutrients, water availability and, extreme temperatures, affect the photosynthetic rate and therefore fluorescence emission.
Tree temperature is related to stomatal conductance and transpiration associated evaporative cooling. When stoma close, under water stress conditions, vegetation temperature increases and the transpiration rate decreases accordingly. Consequently, the temperature of the tree can be used to learn information about transpiration and the health of the tree.
Trees have various mechanisms to overcome the excessive reduction of the light energy transferred when photosynthesis is reduced. This includes downregulating the rate of electron transport in cells and dissipation of excess energy controlling the pool of xanthophyll pigments. The dissipation of excess energy by non-photochemical quenching through the xanthophyll cycle is one of these mechanisms. Non-photochemical quenching is linked to tree stress, caused by limited resources and to the tree photosynthetic activity through the associated changes in the reflectance of the blue and green regions of the spectrum. When excess excitation energy accumulates in the leaf, the chloroplast thykaloid pH gradient increases, and the xanthophyll cycle is activated. These chemical changes affect the spectrally selective absorption of light, the relative absorption by each pigment and hence the leaf spectral reflectance and transmittance factors.
The use of UAV’s allows the aforementioned tree changes to be monitored on a wide scale in relatively small amounts of time. The results can easily be compared over multiple surveys and years. The main downside to this technique is that like, chlorophyll fluorescence testing, it relies on the trees being in leaf which limits the months each year this is usable, however, the large number of trees able to be tested at a time reduces the hindrance of this as a forester could easily survey their entire stock within the limited time window each year. There are restrictions to UAV usage in and around urban environments and airports, however with the evolution of licenses and professional competencies this has become less of an issue over recent years, there are now many professional UAV survey companies available who are licensed to operate in urban areas.
Conclusion and discussion
There are a number of different methodologies and techniques for measuring tree vitality, some are more complex than others, whilst some are used in their basic form by many people without them even knowing (crown/branch architecture).
Methods such as electrical impedance/admittance testing were promising and useful in their time, however advances in technology and scientific understanding of trees has, in my opinion, made this an outdated method with only niche uses in current times. Their unreliable results that were affected by the time of year and the subsequent changes in moisture within the cambial layer of the subject tree made the reliability of the results unpredictable.
The use of tree measurements, height and trunk diameter at breast height, is limited. Although these are basic bits of information regularly recorded during tree inspections/ surveys they are effectively useless on their own. To give insight into the health of the tree there needs to be baseline measurements for that species or a number of previous years measurements of the inspected tree to compare against. Where such information exists these basic measurements can be useful, similarly when a group of the same tree species, that was planted at the same time is compared such measurements will highlight specimens that are not growing as well as the rest of the group. However, there are endless factors that may impact on tree growth over a period of years or even a single year so this methodology should be used in conjunction with other visual findings.
The use of branch architecture is a great system for assessing tree vitality, it can be used 12 months of the year and take little skill or time to learn. I do think that it is not a new discovery or methodology, rather, a formalization of what many people did already, some without realizing. It is however extremely important to take into account the point in its life cycle that the tree is already in, concluding that a veteran tree does not have a positive future outlook due to some thinning of the canopy is not only a gross misunderstanding of the tree and methodology but potentially damaging to the development of future veteran and ancient tree habitats.
Chlorophyll fluorescence testing, this is a highly complex method for assessing tree vitality, behind the tools. But using the modern advancements in testing tools is simple, quick and accurate. The development of some of the most up to date tools that produce graphs and easy to understand data on a tablet is a significant step in not only being able to assess tree vitality, but in communicating it to the client whilst also justifying any management decisions with hard data.
The advancements in UAV technology over recent years has allowed for the development of their use for surveying trees. The usage is still relatively low, compared to the other methods, however it has the potential to be a game changer. For a tree manager to be able to survey the vitality of their entire tree stock in a fraction of the time it would normally take is a significant advancement in tree health care. It will allow the tree manager to pin point trees that are showing early signs of ill health that are invisible to the naked eye, allowing for early treatment.
The important part of any tree vitality assessment is choosing the most appropriate method for the situation. Visual checks and measurements are arguably the most commonly used and, in my opinion, always will be due to their everyday occurrence, sometimes sub consciously but every day for tree managers nonetheless and even with advancements of other techniques, such as UAV’s tree managers and surveyors will still visually inspect a tree that has been highlighted by other techniques when they are sent to investigate further. The advancements of chlorophyll fluorescence testing may narrow the gap in future years due to the affordability and production of tree vitality data that can be used in reports, however, I believe that UAV technology is going to be a significant part of the future of tree management. The ability to survey large areas of tree populations in a short period of time, whilst detecting changes in tree physiology that are invisible to the naked eye is a game changer. I foresee this technology being widely used in the coming years and decades as the basic and initial survey technique, with traditional physical inspections being used once trees have been highlighted as stressed or showing lower vitality than normal.
Ultimately, as with most inspection techniques and tools, a combination of multiple techniques will, in my opinion, provide the most accurate and reliable results whilst allowing the tree managers tool kit to remain versatile and able to accommodate the wide range of situations and environments that the future will bring.
(The above text is based on information originally found in “ Specific leaf area of European Larch (Larix decidua MILL.)” written by Helga Fellner, Gerald F. Dirnberger and Hubert Sterba, Pierce LL, Running SW, Walker J (1994) “Regional-scale relationships of leaf area index to specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen content. Ecol Appl 4:313–321”, Cornelissen JHCA, Lavorel SB, Garnier EB et al (2003) “A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Austria J Bot 51:335–380”, White JD, Scott NA (2006) “Specific leaf area and nitrogen distribution in New Zealand forests: species independently respond to intercepted light. For Ecol Manage 226:319–329”, Poorter H, Pepin S, Rijkers T et al (2006) “Construction costs, chemical composition and payback time of high- and low-irradiance leaves. J Exp Bot 57:355–371”, “ The Measurement of plant vitality in landscape trees” written by Denise Johnstone, Gregory Moore, Michael Tausz and Marc Nocolas, “Visual assessment of tree vitality via branch architecture” by Professor Dr. Andreas Roloff – PDF presentation and audio of initial presentation viewed from https://www.trees.org.uk/Amenity-Conference-2020/Conference-Presentations/Conference-Presentations-2017#wednesday , “Modern Arboriculture” written by Alex L. Shigo, Kate Maxwell, Giles N. Johnson, “Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide, Journal of Experimental Botany, Volume 51, Issue 345, April 2000, Pages 659–668”, “Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications” written by E.H. Murchie and T. Lawson, “Early Diagnosis of Vegetation Health From High-Resolution Hyperspectral and Thermal Imagery: Lessons Learned From Empirical Relationships and Radiative Transfer Modelling” written by R. Hernandez-Clemente, A. Hornero, M. Mottus, J. Penuelas, V. Gonzalez-Dugo, J. C. Jimenez, L. Suarez, L. Alonso and P. J. Zarco-Tejada, “Estimating chlorophyll with thermal and broadband multispectral high resolution imagery from an unmanned aerial system suing relevance vector machines for precision agriculture” written by Manal Elarab, Andrres M Ticlavilca, Alfonso F. Torres-Rua, Inga Maslova, Mac McKee)
Protecting coral reefs more effectively from climate change
Thermally tolerant corals have different mechanisms for responding to heat stress. This is the conclusion of a current study by an international team of researchers including the Konstanz biologist Professor Christian Voolstra that was published in Molecular Ecology. The team examined responses to heat stress in the smooth cauliflower coral (Stylophora pistillata) in the Red Sea by combining the Coral Bleaching Automated Stress System (CBASS) — a mobile rapid heat stress test — with molecular analyses, in order to identify different types of thermal tolerance. The procedure is to be used worldwide, and the respective results could help provide corals with more targeted protection from the effects of climate change.
Death of corals worldwide caused by warming oceans
As a result of climate change, corals all over the world are currently dying. Within just a few decades, the global coral population has dropped by half, and, due to their locally adapted thermal tolerance, many corals are poorly prepared to respond to further increases in ocean temperatures. Some corals, however, are more adept at managing heat stress than others.
In order to elucidate the factors that contribute to higher thermal tolerance in corals, Voolstra and his colleagues introduced a new mobile testing system last year — the Coral Bleaching Automated Stress System (CBASS). The system makes it possible to quickly identify corals that are particularly resilient. “This test procedure is a small revolution for me, because it allows researchers and conservationists alike to assess coral resilience anywhere on Earth and to find out how endangered each coral reef is, without the need for costly and sophisticated tech,” Voolstra described the CBASS system in a previous article.
Different thermal tolerance mechanisms
In the current study, the research team used the testing system to evaluate the thermal tolerance of the smooth cauliflower coral in different regions of the Red Sea. The results show that corals from the Gulf of Aqaba, the most northeastern arm of the Red Sea, demonstrate a remarkable thermal tolerance — up to about 7°C above the respective maximum monthly average for the warmest summer month — just like their peers from the central part of the Red Sea. However, the absolute thermal tolerance of smooth cauliflower corals from the central part of the Red Sea is up to 3°C higher than for the same species in the Gulf of Aqaba, which could suggest that different tolerance mechanisms are at work.
In order to investigate this possibility, the research team conducted molecular analyses to elucidate mechanisms of thermal tolerance in corals from the different locations. Genetic examinations showed that smooth cauliflower corals from the Gulf of Aqaba respond to heat stress with a strongly altered gene expression — for example the increased production of certain proteins. Parallel to this, the composition of the coral-associated bacterial communities changed. By comparison, corals from the central part of the Red Sea did not exhibit any of these changes when exposed to heat stress.
The molecular results support the idea that smooth cauliflower corals have different thermal tolerance mechanisms. “We interpret the response of the corals from the Gulf of Aqaba as that of a “resilient” population that directly and proportionally reacts to increases in temperature. By contrast, the more static expression of genes of the corals from the central part of the Red Sea indicates a fixed reaction norm, irrespective of the heat stress applied, which provides “resistance” to high water temperatures, but at the cost of the ability to flexibly respond to further increases in temperatures,” says Voolstra.
Toolbox of methods for protecting coral reefs worldwide
At the moment, it is unclear which of these tolerance mechanisms protects corals better from the global increase in ocean temperatures caused by climate change. The fact that “resilient” and “resistant” tolerance mechanisms can be distinguished using molecular methods could be of great importance for the conservation prioritization of existing coral reefs or for restoration approaches that could use heat-tolerant corals for sexual propagation.
For this reason, the research team is making plans to employ the methodological approach used successfully in the Red Sea study around the world. “Our study shows the tremendous value of an integrative, combined approach: using the CBASS system for the standardized identification of thermal tolerance in corals with subsequent follow-up molecular analyses to identify the underlying tolerance mechanisms and marker genes,” concludes Voolstra.
Financial support for this project is provided by the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, among others, that funds the CBASS project and the further development of the rapid test system with a total of 4 million dollars (3.4 million euros), as reported by the University of Konstanz in July. Funding for the current study was also provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the US-Israeli Binational Science Foundation (BSF).
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Konstanz. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
