Transformations in Species Interactions

Beaver-created wetland supporting diverse riparian vegetation Raw photo location: hero.jpg

One sentence on impact: We are mapping how restoration actions reshape species interactions so practitioners can see which interventions create resilient, biodiverse wetlands.

Concept brief (PDF) · View shared code · Data & access

About this site: This live notebook captures our three-day sprint at the Restoration Innovation Summit. Edit in your browser: open a file → pencil icon → Commit changes.

How to use this page (for the team)

Edit this file: docs/index.md → ✎ → change text → Commit changes.
Add images: upload to docs/assets/ and reference like assets/your_file.png.
Keep text crisp and visuals front-and-center. Think “annotated slides,” not long prose.

Day 1 — Define & Explore

Focus: questions, hypotheses, context; add at least one visual (photo of whiteboard/notes).

Our product 📣

Publish an interactive story map and one-page decision brief that explain how restoration treatments influence pollinator and amphibian interactions along Colorado’s beaver-enhanced wetlands.

Our question(s) 📣

Which restoration practices (beaver dam analogs, revegetation, flow re-routing) show the strongest shifts in interaction networks between pollinators, amphibians, and vegetation?
How quickly do interaction structures respond after interventions, and which indicators give us an early signal of success?
What metrics resonate with land stewards making decisions about investment and monitoring?

Hypotheses / intentions

We think combining eDNA, acoustic monitoring, and vegetation indices will reveal measurable changes in mutualistic networks within 12 months of restoration work.
We intend to test whether wetlands with layered interventions (hydrology + vegetation) recover interaction diversity faster than single-practice sites.
We will know we’re onto something if we can surface two visual metrics that restoration partners want to monitor after the summit.

Why this matters (the “upshot”) 📣

Restoration teams need a clear read on whether interventions are helping or hindering biodiversity. Making interaction shifts visible in near-real time helps agencies target limited budgets and engage community scientists in follow-up monitoring.

Inspirations (papers, datasets, tools)

Publication: Monitoring ecological interaction networks
Dataset portal: Colorado Wetland and Riparian Spatial Data
Tool/tech: NEON Ecological Forecasting Challenge – Beetle/Plant Interactions

Field notes / visuals

Whiteboard sketch outlining data layers and stakeholder needs Raw photo location: day1_whiteboard.jpg Caption: Initial brainstorm aligning data sources with restoration partner questions.

Different perspectives: Documented requests include quick wins for practitioners, deeper dives for academic partners, and accessible visuals for community stewards.

Day 2 — Data & Methods

Focus: what we’re testing and building; show a first visual (plot/map/screenshot/GIF).

Data sources we’re exploring 📣

Colorado Wetland Monitoring Program (CWMP) – vegetation structure, hydrology classes, and restoration treatment history.

Kernel density plot of pollinator visitation by restoration type Raw photo location: explore_data_plot.png Snapshot showing early differences in visitation diversity across treatment types.

NEON LTER acoustic data – amphibian call diversity tied to restored reaches.
iNaturalist pollinator observations – community-sourced interaction evidence near project sites.

Methods / technologies we’re testing 📣

Bipartite network analysis to characterize changes in pollinator–plant and amphibian–habitat interactions.
Random forest models predicting interaction richness from restoration practice combinations and landscape context.
Interactive deck.gl visualizations for communicating spatial patterns to partners.

Challenges identified

Aligning spatial resolution between CWMP polygons and NEON monitoring footprints.
Handling sampling bias within community observation data.
Communicating uncertainty without overwhelming rapid decision-making timelines.

Visuals

Static figure

Preliminary network diagram contrasting restored vs. reference sites Raw photo location: figure1.png Figure 1. Early indication that restored reaches host richer pollinator–plant pairings.

Animated change (GIF)

Seasonal shift in amphibian call diversity Raw photo location: change.gif Figure 2. Call diversity expands following hydrologic restoration during peak breeding season.

Interactive map (iframe)

Open full map

If an embed doesn’t load, include the direct link underneath.

Focus: synthesis; highlight 2–3 visuals that tell the story; keep text crisp. Practice a 2-minute walkthrough of the homepage 📣: Why → Questions → Data/Methods → Findings → Next.

Team photo at start of Day 3 Raw photo location: team_photo.jpg

Findings at a glance 📣

Beaver-inspired interventions doubled pollinator visitation diversity compared with untreated reaches.
Sites with paired hydrology + revegetation treatments showed the fastest rebound in amphibian acoustic richness.
Network metrics highlight three indicator species whose presence aligns with successful restoration outcomes.

Visuals that tell the story 📣

Lead conclusion visual showing interaction density change Raw photo location: fire_hull.png Visual 1. Interaction density spikes around treatment clusters, guiding future monitoring hotspots.

Supporting panels comparing treatments Raw photo location: hull_panels.png Visual 2. Side-by-side view of treatment recipes clarifies which combinations yield the strongest biodiversity response.

Complementary result figure showing temporal dynamics Raw photo location: main_result.png Visual 3. Monthly trends make it easy for partners to plan follow-up surveys across seasons.

What’s next? 📣

Package the story map and code notebooks for partner review in early March.
Coordinate with restoration teams to identify upcoming treatments for prototype monitoring.
Submit a mini-grant proposal to expand acoustic sensor deployment at priority wetlands.

Featured links (image buttons)

Read the concept brief

Run the notebooks

Explore processed data

Team

Name	Role	Contact	GitHub
Avery Chen	Project lead & restoration ecologist	avery.chen@colorado.edu	@averychen
Malik Robinson	Data science & modeling	malik.robinson@colorado.edu	@malik-rob
Carmen Ruiz	Community & partnerships	carmen.ruiz@colorado.edu	@c-ruiz

Storage

Code Keep shared scripts, notebooks, and utilities in the code/ directory. Document how to run them in a README or within the files so teammates and visitors can reproduce your workflow.

Documentation Use the docs/ folder to publish project updates on this site. Longer internal notes can live in documentation/; summarize key takeaways here so the public story stays current.

Community storage All large data and shared deliverables should be stored in the Group 12 CyVerse folder. Link relevant subfolders from the Data page so collaborators can find inputs and outputs quickly.

Cite & reuse

If you use these materials, please cite:

ESIIL Innovation Summit 2025 Group 12. (2025). Transformations in Species Interactions — Innovation Summit 2025 (Group 12). https://github.com/CU-ESIIL/transformations-species-interactions-restoration-innovation-summit-2025__12

License: CC-BY-4.0 unless noted. See dataset licenses on the Data page.

<!-- EDIT HINTS - Upload images to docs/assets/ and reference as assets/filename.png