Search

Environmental DNA (eDNA) quantification and sequencing are emerging techniques for assessing biodiversity in marine ecosystems. Environmental DNA can be transported by ocean currents and may remain at detectable concentrations far from its source depending on how long it persist. Thus, predicting the persistence time of eDNA is crucial to defining the spatial context of the information derived from it. To investigate the physicochemical controls of eDNA persistence, we performed degradation experiments at temperature, pH, and oxygen conditions relevant to the open ocean and the deep sea. The eDNA degradation process was best explained by a model with two phases with different decay rate constants. During the initial phase, eDNA degraded rapidly, and the rate was independent of physicochemical factors. During the second phase, eDNA degraded slowly, and the rate was strongly controlled by temperature, weakly controlled by pH, and not controlled by dissolved oxygen concentration. We demonstrate that marine eDNA can persist at quantifiable concentrations for over 2 weeks at low temperatures (≤10 °C) but for a week or less at ≥20 °C. The relationship between temperature and eDNA persistence is independent of the source species. We propose a general temperature-dependent model to predict the maximum persistence time of eDNA detectable through single-species eDNA quantification methods.

Faculty Member #1 I came to the university excited about the prospect of working with a cohort of young colleagues who had impressed me when I interviewed. I liked the department head very much. He not only recruited me enthusiastically, but he was incredibly supportive. He was fair in distributing resources and made sure that junior faculty got high-quality graduate students. He provided a clear assessment of my progress each year prior to tenure and set a tone indicating that it was normal for junior faculty to seek help and mentoring. But the year I was granted tenure a new head entered the picture and life changed drastically. He rapidly alienated several senior colleagues I admired as well as some of my junior colleagues, many of whom ended up leaving the department. The new head played favorites, ignored established processes, and didn't support the promotion of several outstanding young faculty hired under the former head. He also reneged on several promises that the former head had made to me. It's been years since he became the department head, but I am still disillusioned and disappointed. I find myself advising newly hired colleagues to build their CVs and keep an eye open for other jobs; I tell them "outstanding work does not assure success in this department." Faculty Member #2 When I first came to the university, one of the things that gave me the most satisfaction was working closely with two of my senior colleagues: Ed and Jon. I truly valued their collaboration on grants, research, and publications, and had always believed that we worked well together and respected one another. That's why I was so taken aback, on the eve of my tenure decision, to learn from others in the department that Ed and Jon had voiced concerns to the tenure committee about my performance. Neither Ed nor Jon had ever shared these concerns with me, and I felt disconcerted and hurt. Although I eventually did receive tenure, the experience left a bad taste in my mouth. Now, when I hear Ed and Jon speak in faculty meetings, I wonder what their words are hiding. I see the glances they exchange when I'm speaking, and I resent their implication. Because I find it uncomfortable to be with these two colleagues, I avoid them whenever possible. I have extricated myself from joint research ventures and purposely avoid Ed and Jon in other venues of departmental life. Introduction: What Our Research Revealed What do the two stories above have in common? First, they portray senior (defined in this study as tenured) faculty members who are dissatisfied with their respective experiences at their institution. Second, in both cases, negative or disillusioning experiences at key times in their professional lives have colored the lens through which these individuals view their colleagues and experience life in their departments. They have responded to these events in ways that are counter to fostering collegiality and a sense of community--two primary sources of satisfaction in academic life (Barnes, Agago, & Coombs, 1998; Manger & Eikeland, 1990; Matier, 1990; Weiler, 1985). Although dissatisfied senior faculty members are hardly rare in academia (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Boice, 1993; Hamrick, 2003; Karpiak, 1997; Mills, 2000), what is interesting about these particular stories is that they describe faculty who are not stagnant professionally but who continue to be remarkably productive: They publish extensively, secure prestigious grants, and succeed in a variety of other areas, as described below. In other words, these senior faculty members are at the top of their game. Nevertheless, they remain withdrawn in important ways at their own university, a problem we believe is not unique to this institution. What characterizes the experiences of faculty such as these, and what is the impact on their institutions? To what extent does the literature help us to understand the sources of their dissatisfaction and their responses to it? …

Universities attempt to hire the highest quality faculty they can, but they are not always successful at retaining them. Furthermore, some faculty members who do remain may not function as engaging colleagues who make others want to stay. This study investigates why some faculty members leave and why others stay by illuminating the complexities of individual experiences. Using semi-structured interviews rather than surveys, a matched cohort of 123 faculty members (half current and half former) from one institution was interviewed. Although some of their primary reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction (e.g., collegiality, mentoring) were predicted by general survey research, there were also unforeseeable issues that strongly influenced satisfaction and decisions to stay or leave, demonstrating the importance of institution-specific research. This paper provides a method for collecting institution-specific information as well as several arguments for conducting interviews instead of pre-defined surveys.

Engineering education faces significant challenges as it seeks to meet the demands on the engineering profession in the twenty-first century. Engineering faculty will need to continue to learn new approaches to teaching and learning, which in turn will require effective professional development for both new and experienced instructors alike. This article explores approaches to effective professional development and provides a conceptual framework for responding to the challenge of becoming a professional engineering educator. The “cycle of professional practice” is introduced as a prelude for identifying what individual professors and their institutions can do to generate more powerful forms of engineering education. The article concludes with two case studies that illustrate the possibilities when faculty and academic leaders join together in addressing calls for change.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education atDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in To Improve the Academy by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.