Dynamics of a large submersed plant bed in upper Chesapeake Bay

A large SAV bed in upper Chesapeake Bay has experienced several abrupt shifts over the past half-century, beginning with near-complete loss after a record-breaking flood in 1972, followed by an unexpected, rapid resurgence in the early 2000’s, then partial decline in 2011 following another major flood event. Together, these trends and events provide a unique opportunity to study a recovering SAV ecosystem from several different perspectives. First, I analyzed and synthesized existing time series datasets to make inferences about what factors prompted the recovery. Next, I analyzed existing datasets, together with field samples and a simple hydrodynamic model to investigate mechanisms of SAV bed loss and resilience to storm events. Finally, I conducted field deployments and experiments to explore how the bed affects internal physical and biogeochemical processes and what implications those effects have for the dynamics of the system. I found that modest reductions in nutrient loading, coupled with several consecutive dry years likely facilitated the SAV resurgence. Furthermore, positive feedback processes may have played a role in the sudden nature of the recovery because they could have reinforced the state of the bed before and after the abrupt shift. I also found that scour and poor water clarity associated with sediment deposition during the 2011 flood event were mechanisms of plant loss. However, interactions between the bed, water flow, and waves served as mechanisms of resilience because these processes created favorable growing conditions (i.e., clear water, low flow velocities) in the inner core of the bed. Finally, I found that that interactions between physical and biogeochemical processes led to low nutrient concentrations inside the bed relative to outside the bed, which created conditions that precluded algal growth and reinforced vascular plant dominance. This work demonstrates that positive feedbacks play a central role in SAV resilience to both chronic eutrophication as well as acute storm events. Furthermore, I show that analysis of long-term ecological monitoring data, together with field measurements and experiments, can be an effective approach for understanding the mechanisms underlying ecosystem dynamics.

THE PHYSICS OF IDEAS: INFERRING THE MECHANICS OF OPINION FORMATION FROM MACROSCOPIC STATISTICAL PATTERNS

In a microscopic setting, humans behave in rich and unexpected ways. In a macroscopic setting, however, distinctive patterns of group behavior emerge, leading statistical physicists to search for an underlying mechanism. The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the macroscopic patterns of competing ideas in order to discern the mechanics of how group opinions form at the microscopic level. First, we explore the competition of answers in online Q&A (question and answer) boards. We find that a simple individual-level model can capture important features of user behavior, especially as the number of answers to a question grows. Our model further suggests that the wisdom of crowds may be constrained by information overload, in which users are unable to thoroughly evaluate each answer and therefore tend to use heuristics to pick what they believe is the best answer. Next, we explore models of opinion spread among voters to explain observed universal statistical patterns such as rescaled vote distributions and logarithmic vote correlations. We introduce a simple model that can explain both properties, as well as why it takes so long for large groups to reach consensus. An important feature of the model that facilitates agreement with data is that individuals become more stubborn (unwilling to change their opinion) over time. Finally, we explore potential underlying mechanisms for opinion formation in juries, by comparing data to various types of models. We find that different null hypotheses in which jurors do not interact when reaching a decision are in strong disagreement with data compared to a simple interaction model. These findings provide conceptual and mechanistic support for previous work that has found mutual influence can play a large role in group decisions. In addition, by matching our models to data, we are able to infer the time scales over which individuals change their opinions for different jury contexts. We find that these values increase as a function of the trial time, suggesting that jurors and judicial panels exhibit a kind of stubbornness similar to what we include in our model of voting behavior.