Ryan S. Anderson
University of Montana
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Ryan S. Anderson.
Open Biology | 2015
Gina V. Caldas; Tina R. Lynch; Ryan S. Anderson; Sana Afreen; Dileep Varma; Jennifer G. DeLuca
The spindle assembly checkpoint is a surveillance mechanism that blocks anaphase onset until all chromosomes are properly attached to microtubules of the mitotic spindle. Checkpoint activity requires kinetochore localization of Mad1/Mad2 to inhibit activation of the anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome in the presence of unattached kinetochores. In budding yeast and Caenorhabditis elegans, Bub1, recruited to kinetochores through KNL1, recruits Mad1/Mad2 by direct linkage with Mad1. However, in human cells it is not yet established which kinetochore protein(s) function as the Mad1/Mad2 receptor. Both Bub1 and the RZZ complex have been implicated in Mad1/Mad2 kinetochore recruitment; however, their specific roles remain unclear. Here, we investigate the contributions of Bub1, RZZ and KNL1 to Mad1/Mad2 kinetochore recruitment. We find that the RZZ complex localizes to the N-terminus of KNL1, downstream of Bub1, to mediate robust Mad1/Mad2 kinetochore localization. Our data also point to the existence of a KNL1-, Bub1-independent mechanism for RZZ and Mad1/Mad2 kinetochore recruitment. Based on our results, we propose that in humans, the primary mediator for Mad1/Mad2 kinetochore localization is the RZZ complex.
Ecology | 2017
Nicholas E. Young; Ryan S. Anderson; Stephen M. Chignell; Anthony Vorster; Rick L. Lawrence; Paul H. Evangelista
Landsat data are increasingly used for ecological monitoring and research. These data often require preprocessing prior to analysis to account for sensor, solar, atmospheric, and topographic effects. However, ecologists using these data are faced with a literature containing inconsistent terminology, outdated methods, and a vast number of approaches with contradictory recommendations. These issues can, at best, make determining the correct preprocessing workflow a difficult and time-consuming task and, at worst, lead to erroneous results. We address these problems by providing a concise overview of the Landsat missions and sensors and by clarifying frequently conflated terms and methods. Preprocessing steps commonly applied to Landsat data are differentiated and explained, including georeferencing and co-registration, conversion to radiance, solar correction, atmospheric correction, topographic correction, and relative correction. We then synthesize this information by presenting workflows and a decision tree for determining the appropriate level of imagery preprocessing given an ecological research question, while emphasizing the need to tailor each workflow to the study site and question at hand. We recommend a parsimonious approach to Landsat preprocessing that avoids unnecessary steps and recommend approaches and data products that are well tested, easily available, and sufficiently documented. Our focus is specific to ecological applications of Landsat data, yet many of the concepts and recommendations discussed are also appropriate for other disciplines and remote sensing platforms.
Biogeochemistry | 2016
Erandathie Lokupitiya; A. S. Denning; Kevin Schaefer; Daniel M. Ricciuto; Ryan S. Anderson; M.A. Arain; Ian T. Baker; Alan G. Barr; Guangsheng Chen; Jing M. Chen; P. Ciais; D. R. Cook; Michael C. Dietze; M. El Maayar; Marc L. Fischer; R. F. Grant; David Y. Hollinger; C. Izaurralde; Atul K. Jain; Christopher J. Kucharik; Zhengpeng Li; Shuguang Liu; L. Li; Roser Matamala; Philippe Peylin; David T. Price; S. W. Running; A. K. Sahoo; Michael Sprintsin; Andrew E. Suyker
Croplands are highly productive ecosystems that contribute to land–atmosphere exchange of carbon, energy, and water during their short growing seasons. We evaluated and compared net ecosystem exchange (NEE), latent heat flux (LE), and sensible heat flux (H) simulated by a suite of ecosystem models at five agricultural eddy covariance flux tower sites in the central United States as part of the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis project. Most of the models overestimated H and underestimated LE during the growing season, leading to overall higher Bowen ratios compared to the observations. Most models systematically under predicted NEE, especially at rain-fed sites. Certain crop-specific models that were developed considering the high productivity and associated physiological changes in specific crops better predicted the NEE and LE at both rain-fed and irrigated sites. Models with specific parameterization for different crops better simulated the inter-annual variability of NEE for maize-soybean rotation compared to those models with a single generic crop type. Stratification according to basic model formulation and phenological methodology did not explain significant variation in model performance across these sites and crops. The under prediction of NEE and LE and over prediction of H by most of the models suggests that models developed and parameterized for natural ecosystems cannot accurately predict the more robust physiology of highly bred and intensively managed crop ecosystems. When coupled in Earth System Models, it is likely that the excessive physiological stress simulated in many land surface component models leads to overestimation of temperature and atmospheric boundary layer depth, and underestimation of humidity and CO2 seasonal uptake over agricultural regions.
Remote Sensing | 2015
Stephen M. Chignell; Ryan S. Anderson; Paul H. Evangelista; Melinda Laituri; David M. Merritt
Maximum flood extent—a key data need for disaster response and mitigation—is rarely quantified due to storm-related cloud cover and the low temporal resolution of optical sensors. While change detection approaches can circumvent these issues through the identification of inundated land and soil from post-flood imagery, their accuracy can suffer in the narrow and complex channels of increasingly developed and heterogeneous floodplains. This study explored the utility of the Operational Land Imager (OLI) and Independent Component Analysis (ICA) for addressing these challenges in the unprecedented 2013 Flood along the Colorado Front Range, USA. Pre- and post-flood images were composited and transformed with an ICA to identify change classes. Flooded pixels were extracted using image segmentation, and the resulting flood layer was refined with cloud and irrigated agricultural masks derived from the ICA. Visual assessment against aerial orthophotography showed close agreement with high water marks and scoured riverbanks, and a pixel-to-pixel validation with WorldView-2 imagery captured near peak flow yielded an overall accuracy of 87% and Kappa of 0.73. Additional tests showed a twofold increase in flood class accuracy over the commonly used modified normalized water index. The approach was able to simultaneously distinguish flood-related water and soil moisture from pre-existing water bodies and other spectrally similar classes within the narrow and braided channels of the study site. This was accomplished without the use of post-processing smoothing operations, enabling the important preservation of nuanced inundation patterns. Although flooding beneath moderate and sparse riparian vegetation canopy was captured, dense vegetation cover and paved regions of the floodplain were main sources of omission error, and commission errors occurred primarily in pixels of mixed land use and along the flood edge. Nevertheless, the unsupervised nature of ICA, in conjunction with the global availability of Landsat imagery, offers a straightforward, robust, and flexible approach to flood mapping that requires no ancillary data for rapid implementation. Finally, the spatial layer of flood extent and a summary of impacts were provided for use in the region’s ongoing hydrologic research and mitigation planning.
Journal of Visualized Experiments | 2016
Amanda M. West; Paul H. Evangelista; Catherine S. Jarnevich; Nicholas E. Young; Thomas J. Stohlgren; Colin Talbert; Marian Talbert; Jeffrey T. Morisette; Ryan S. Anderson
Early detection of invasive plant species is vital for the management of natural resources and protection of ecosystem processes. The use of satellite remote sensing for mapping the distribution of invasive plants is becoming more common, however conventional imaging software and classification methods have been shown to be unreliable. In this study, we test and evaluate the use of five species distribution model techniques fit with satellite remote sensing data to map invasive tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) along the Arkansas River in Southeastern Colorado. The models tested included boosted regression trees (BRT), Random Forest (RF), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), generalized linear model (GLM), and Maxent. These analyses were conducted using a newly developed software package called the Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling (SAHM). All models were trained with 499 presence points, 10,000 pseudo-absence points, and predictor variables acquired from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor over an eight-month period to distinguish tamarisk from native riparian vegetation using detection of phenological differences. From the Landsat scenes, we used individual bands and calculated Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), and tasseled capped transformations. All five models identified current tamarisk distribution on the landscape successfully based on threshold independent and threshold dependent evaluation metrics with independent location data. To account for model specific differences, we produced an ensemble of all five models with map output highlighting areas of agreement and areas of uncertainty. Our results demonstrate the usefulness of species distribution models in analyzing remotely sensed data and the utility of ensemble mapping, and showcase the capability of SAHM in pre-processing and executing multiple complex models.
Global Change Biology | 2012
Andrew D. Richardson; Ryan S. Anderson; M. Altaf Arain; Alan Barr; Gil Bohrer; Guangsheng Chen; Jing M. Chen; Philippe Ciais; Kenneth J. Davis; Ankur R. Desai; Michael C. Dietze; Danilo Dragoni; Steven R. Garrity; Christopher M. Gough; Robert F. Grant; David Y. Hollinger; Hank A. Margolis; Harry McCaughey; Mirco Migliavacca; Russell K. Monson; J. William Munger; Benjamin Poulter; Brett Raczka; Daniel M. Ricciuto; A. K. Sahoo; Kevin Schaefer; Hanqin Tian; Rodrigo Vargas; Hans Verbeeck; Jingfeng Xiao
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2010
Christopher R. Schwalm; Christopher A. Williams; Kevin Schaefer; Ryan S. Anderson; M. Altaf Arain; Ian T. Baker; Alan Barr; T. Andrew Black; Guangsheng Chen; Jing M. Chen; Philippe Ciais; Kenneth J. Davis; Ankur R. Desai; Michael C. Dietze; Danilo Dragoni; Marc L. Fischer; Lawrence B. Flanagan; Robert F. Grant; Lianhong Gu; David Y. Hollinger; R. Cesar Izaurralde; Christopher J. Kucharik; Peter M. Lafleur; Beverly E. Law; Longhui Li; Zhengpeng Li; Shuguang Liu; Erandathie Lokupitiya; Yiqi Luo; Siyan Ma
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2012
Kevin Schaefer; Christopher R. Schwalm; Christopher A. Williams; M. Altaf Arain; Alan Barr; Jing M. Chen; Kenneth J. Davis; Dimitre D. Dimitrov; Timothy W. Hilton; David Y. Hollinger; Elyn R. Humphreys; Benjamin Poulter; Brett Raczka; Andrew D. Richardson; A. K. Sahoo; Peter E. Thornton; Rodrigo Vargas; Hans Verbeeck; Ryan S. Anderson; Ian Baker; T. Andrew Black; Paul V. Bolstad; Jiquan Chen; Peter S. Curtis; Ankur R. Desai; Michael C. Dietze; Danilo Dragoni; Christopher M. Gough; Robert F. Grant; Lianhong Gu
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2011
Michael C. Dietze; Rodrigo Vargas; Andrew D. Richardson; Paul C. Stoy; Alan Barr; Ryan S. Anderson; M. Altaf Arain; Ian T. Baker; T. Andrew Black; Jing M. Chen; Philippe Ciais; Lawrence B. Flanagan; Christopher M. Gough; Robert F. Grant; David Y. Hollinger; R. Cesar Izaurralde; Christopher J. Kucharik; Peter M. Lafleur; Shugang Liu; Erandathie Lokupitiya; Yiqi Luo; J. William Munger; Changhui Peng; Benjamin Poulter; David T. Price; Daniel M. Ricciuto; William J. Riley; A. K. Sahoo; Kevin Schaefer; Andrew E. Suyker
Ecological Modelling | 2010
Alan V. Di Vittorio; Ryan S. Anderson; Joseph D. White; Norman L. Miller; Steven W. Running