TS
Tectonics and Structural Geology

Early Career Scientists

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Cesar Ranero

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Cesar Ranero

These bi-weekly blogs present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Stay tuned to learn from their experience, to discover the pieces of advice they share, to find out where the newest challenges lie, and much more!


Meeting Cesar Ranero


Prof. Cesar Ranero is an Earth Science researcher, currently Head of Barcelona Center for Subsurface Imaging (Barcelona-CSI). He owns a degree in Structural Geology and Petrology from the Basque country and he later completed his PhD in Barcelona, emerging himself in Geophysics. Prof. Ranero’s research is marked by a multidisciplinary approach, applying physical methodologies to understand geological processes.

Scientist also have to look for collaboration with the industry.

Ranero giving an outreach talk on fossil fuels at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona (CCCB). Credit: Cesar Ranero

Hi Cesar, after doing research for few decades, what is, at present, your main research interest?

My research interest covers mainly active processes, I am not so interested in regional geology. I see regional geology as a necessary step to understand processes but the main goal of our group is to understand geological processes. For instance, a great interest in our group is the seismogenic zone and the generation of great earthquakes. We have very good examples in the Iberian peninsula, such as the famous 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Yet, nobody knows where the big fault that created this earthquake is located. We have a lot of research to do. But, often to understand local geology you need to integrate it in the big-picture view of processes. This is why we are mainly interested in those processes rather than in regional geology.

The more you know, the more you realize that nearly everything is to be discovered.

Further, I am interested in interacting with the industry. The geological/geophysical community is a relatively small community (compared to medicine, for example). There is out there quite a few industry groups that are doing very similar things in terms of methodologies and approaches (communities working in oil & gas exploration, or the ones working on carbon sequestration, or geothermal energy production…) All these communities have quite a bit of history in the development of methodologies. They usually have much more money and very talented people developing new methodologies. It is very necessary that we participate in their interests. They are often showing interest in what we do. By going to their meetings and talking to them, you can build fruitful interactions. Scientists also have to look for collaboration with the industry, because at the end of the day it is a place where some of our students can find a good job and make a career.

How would you describe your approach and methods?

The approach in our group is multidisciplinary, we combine complementary methodologies. But it is also important to be aware of proper methods to interpret geophysical data (you have to understand different geological methods, for instance, the methods used in structural geology).

Poststack finite-difference time migration line showing the structure of the Cocos plate across the ocean trench slope. Ranero et al., 2003, Bending-related faulting and mantle serpentinization at the Middle America trench, Nature, 425, 6956, 367.

 

What would you say is your favorite aspect of your research?

What stroke me since I started my PhD is how much good work has been done, but how much more needs to be done.
We know a lot because there were many talented people before doing a lot of work. But actually, if you have a sceptical mind, the more you know, the more you realize that nearly everything is to be discovered. If you look at the last 10 years, you realize that a lot of what has been published is incremental science and much had been laid down in previous publications. But also, there are a whole series of new topics coming out and you have to pay attention because those are the topics that really mean a substantial jump forward. Every year there are several new interesting things coming. For example, earthquake phenomena have been an amazing topic in the last years, all these new phenomena explaining how plate boundaries slip. You have to keep a sceptical mind and at the same time search for those topics.

You have to have a sceptical mind.

Why is your research relevant, what are the real world applications?

This is always a good question. We do a lot of basic research and there is always the philosophical question on whether basic research is relevant… When we discovered the laser, nobody knew how relevant this would be in the future. Now, we can not live without it! I am sure that there is a percentage of basic science discovery that might not have any real-world application. But in many cases, it does. Much of what we do contributes to the understanding of natural hazards. But also, we contribute to resolving problems industries and society are concerned with.

Prestack depth migration of a Sonne-81 line projected on bathymetry perspective. Ranero & von Huene, 2000, Subduction erosion along the Middle America convergent margin, Nature, 404, 6779, 748.

 

At this point of your career, what do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

I would like to think that it is the next one! (laughs)

I am proud to have been elected as a fellow of the American Geophysical Union. It means I have done something relevant that is appreciated by my peers, and at the same time, it is a great motivation to work even harder in the future.

Also, I have some nice papers that I am proud of (tectonics of subduction zones, the role of fluids on earthquakes, serpentinization of the outer rise). My view is that for most people, after you finish your career and you look back at your many publications, probably only 3-4 papers are really worth it and seriously contributed brand new material.

What would you say is the main problem that you solved during your most recent project?

Since I came back to Spain, 12 years ago, I started to work a lot in the Mediterranean. For many years, the Mediterranean had been a place where people did not want to work because it is too complex. With the help of German groups and others, our group has been able to characterize for the first time the nature of the crust in many systems in the Mediterranean. We have added a new layer of information to understand the evolution of the whole Mediterranean region. I am quite happy with that, we are producing quite a few papers and have some very new ideas, and we have also started to put that together with fieldwork. There has been a lot of on-land work all around the Mediterranean, but rather limited modern geophysical data on the nearby basins. For example, the Apennines are very well known, but the nearby Tyrrhenian, not so much… We worked with the Italian and the German groups and found some new, interesting geological observations.

Cartoon showing a conceptual model of the structure and metamorphic evolution of subducting lithosphere formed at a fast spreading center. Ranero et al., 2005, Relationship between bend-faulting at trenches and intermediate-depth seismicity, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 6, Q12002, doi:10.1029/2005GC000997.

The biggest challenge is to have time to think about new observations of
high quality that challenges the conventional view
.

After being many years active in the academia, looking back, what would you change to improve how science in your field is done?

I think there are significant differences depending on the country, even within Europe, in terms of funding: how research is done, how research careers develop… Some countries, like Germany and France, are doing relatively good in terms of funding. Other countries, like Spain, Italy or Portugal are not. These countries do not have a well-organized structure for funding, so for researchers is difficult to know how to organize funding around their research to succeed. The people that do well, that work hard, that produce, should have the certainty that they will be able to move forward. But today there is a lot of uncertainty, and in these countries, there’s no warranty that people who deserve it, will have their chances. This is a major problem for ECR, and I think a better structure funding and more funding opportunities for ECR are needed.

Regarding European-funded projects, as for example those of the European Research Council, these programs are extremely prestigious, and only the very top are getting these very well funded grants. And yet, it is unclear to me, at least in my community, that the results and papers produced in the context of these programs are of higher quality than those in other funding programs. So, is it unclear to me that this is a system that we should sustain, but that we shall see in the next years. Talking to others, I get the perception that it is now becoming somewhat too prestigious, people even hesitate to submit proposals because they have to invest loads of time into it and is a huge effort that might not even pass the first evaluation, and review comments appear somewhat indecisive. But I might be wrong on this one.

What you just exposed, goes to some extent in line with my next question: What are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

As for the scientific challenges, I think we can look back at the Plate Tectonic revolution. How did it happen? Before it happened, many observations did not have a good explanation because we were lacking the right data. Then, almost suddenly, we got three datasets that nobody had seen before: magnetometers and echo sonars of higher quality coming from the second-world-war related research, and a worldwide seismological network for monitoring within the frame of the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. And of course, these data landed on the right people. But, in my opinion, it was the access to the right data that provided a whole new view on geology.

So, perhaps the biggest challenge we have now is to be able to produce new methodologies of high resolution to look deeper into the Earth. We need to use high-quality new data sets and new observations that could allow to actually challenge the conventional views.

This is very complicated, particularly in the academic world we live in now. Currently, people have to write several papers for their PhD, and immediately after, in the postdoc period, they have to produce a massive number of papers to at least have a chance. In these circumstances, you can simply not think long enough in a complicated problem. There’s little time to think about what the main fundamental problems are that you want to solve. You have to be a paper-producing machine, and this is detrimental to their quality. You might manage to be someone that is highly productive but, in that frame, it is unlikely that you will often produce major quality. There’s too much pressure on ECRs. So, a challenge is to have time to think about how to obtain new observations of high quality that can change conventional views.

Pre-stack depth-migrated line IAM11, with arrows and numbers indicating the average dips of the block-bounding fault segments exhumed during rifting. Ranero & Pérez-Gussinyé, 2010, Sequential faulting explains the asymmetry and extension discrepancy of conjugate margins, Nature, 468, 7321, 294.

You have to be a paper-producing machine, and this is detrimental to their quality.

What were your motivating grounds, starting as an Early Career Researcher? Did you always saw yourself staying in academia?

I actually thought of going to the industry when I finished university. But I was lucky enough to be introduced to Enric Banda, my PhD supervisor, who had a big picture of geosciences, and he made a real impression on me and made me change my goals. Once I started my career in science, I quickly realized that there was a lot to be done. After two-three years into my PhD, thanks to a nice data set and some good results that were coming out, I definitely saw myself staying in academia. I looked for funding before finishing my PhD and I was lucky to get a Marie Curie, which was not even called like that at the time. I was lucky to work with relatively large groups, and with good funding. There was a good moment, also for industry. Funding was not a major issue for me for many years, so I could spend my time doing the research I wanted. At present, early careers are much more complicated, and you have to really like it to keep on pushing for it.

What advice would you like to give the ECS?

Be ambitious, think big. Don’t be afraid of making mistakes. And above all, be sceptical, completely sceptical about everything. Don’t pretend you know more about what you know, but be sceptical. Because, almost for sure, no matter who did the work, it can be improved, and in most cases, to a great extent. And be open, talk to everybody.

 

Researchers of the Barcelona Center for Subsurface Imaging. Credit: Cesar Ranero

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Mind your head #3: A healthy relationship with your advisor

Mind your head #3: A healthy relationship with your advisor

Mind Your Head is a blog series dedicated towards addressing mental health in the academic environment and highlighting solutions relieving stress in daily academic life.

Besides the professional environment in general, the relationship between early career researchers and their advisors also plays an important role in the degree of stress researchers might experience. This relationship does not only depend on the type of advisor you have, but also on your own personality type. A tough supervisor for one person, might be a very good supervisor for someone else. The success of a healthy relationship therefore lies in the expectations you have for each other, and how you respond if those expectations are not met.

Different types of advisors
There are many different types of advisors, as there are many different types of people. A famous one is the ‘superbusy’ type, but also the ‘over-confident’ (“of course this never-tried method will work!”), or the ‘micro-manager’ (someone who checks every detail of your work), are common types.

The ideal advisor would be a supporting one, who cares about your future career, tries to teach you how to become an independent researcher and encourages you to do your work in a way that works best for you. The opposite would be someone who is interested in their own career and only sees you as someone who will simply take on some of their workload, whilst all the time keeping control on how you do that.

Generally speaking, advisors will fall in between these two extremes, and depending on their own stress levels, they might be easier to work with at some times than at others.

Expectations in both ways
The good news is that you can steer a little as well! So, how to make sure your situation will approach the ‘ideal’ situation, rather than the opposite? The first thing you need is probably a bit of luck; a good fit of characters might already be enough to obtain a healthy relationship.

If you’re not so lucky, then communication becomes key! Take the time to figure out what your advisor expects from you as an early career scientist and to think about what you expect from him or her. Advisors are all different, but students are too! Make sure to tell your advisor what you need in order to do a successful job. For example, does your advisor expect you to write your drafts mainly independent? Or does he or she prefer to work on it together, and check it after each section you’ve written? You both might have different preferences for this and it is important to discuss these and find a compromise.

If necessary, make an appointment once a year to simply discuss the process of decision-making and discuss what the best way of communication is for both of you. For example: some people prefer lengthy emails, some short, and some people you need to catch in person in order to work together. If you make it a habit to figure out what the best mode of communication is, it will definitely speed up any cooperation!

Most conflicts between PhD-students and supervisors arise in the final year of the PhD, since this is the point that the student thinks most independently. – Marie-Laure Parmentier (occasional consultant for Belpaeme Conseil)

When conflicts arise
When expectations are not met, a conflict may arise. An example is the case of the ‘superbusy’ advisor, who never has time to talk, whereas you would prefer to have regular short discussions (once in two weeks for example). This could lead to frustration on the students’ part, and even to giving up on trying to communicate at all.

A contrary situation could be an advisor who checks up on you daily to see how you are doing, probably with all the best intensions, whereas you prefer to work independently, and will only call your advisor when you are stuck. This situation could lead to the feeling of not working hard enough and not meeting expectations, which most likely is not the advisors intension.

Eventually these types of frustration will build up and slow down your work, so it is best to simply avoid it all together by discussing expectations clearly.

 

Albert Mehrabian’s 7-38-55 Rule of Personal Communication. Credit: www.rightattitudes.com

 

When a conflict arises, the most direct and understandable response is an emotional one; frustration, anger or quiet worry eating away at you. People often directly confront the person causing such an emotional response (which is very human!). However, as you probably know, this is not the smartest, nor the most professional way to deal with frustrations.

So, take a step back and calm down first, count to 10, briefly go to the gym, sleep on it, or go to a friendly colleague to shout out all your frustration; anything that works for you. Reflect on the situation, figure out what the main issue is, and then find a quiet moment during which you can discuss the problem in a calm and rational way. This will ensure your message is received and taken seriously.

In a direct conversation, the impact of your message is mainly determined by body language, while the contribution of the actual words is very little (only 7%). If your movements, space occupation, intonation and volume shout out your anger or your sadness, your conversation partner is likely to respond to the emotion, rather than the message, even if you manage to find the right words straight away.

To conclude: even when you have a different opinion than your advisor, when you are able to express your arguments carefully and clearly, it is much more likely that you’ll find a solution which works for both of you. Communication is key in becoming a better scientist, and will benefit you in any type of collaboration during your career!

By Elenora van Rijsingen
Written with help and revisions from Anne Pluymakers

 

Resources

2nd workshop of the Marie Skodowska-Curie ITN project CREEP: Discussion sessions between senior- and early career scientists focused on reducing stress levels in academia.

PhD management training by Marie-Laure Parmentier from Belpaeme Conseil, France. 

Minds over Methods: Linking microfossils to tectonics

Minds over Methods: Linking microfossils to tectonics

This edition of Minds over Methods article is written by Sarah Kachovich and discusses how tiny fossils can be used to address large scale tectonic questions. During her PhD at the University of Brisbane, Australia, she used radiolarian biostratigraphy to provide temporal constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Himalayan region – onshore and offshore on board IODP Expedition 362. Sarah explains why microfossils are so useful and how their assemblages can be used to understand the history of the Himalayas. And how are new technologies improving our understanding of microfossils, thus advancing them as a dating method?

 

                                                                          Linking microfossils to tectonics

Credit: Sarah Kachovich

Sarah Kachovich, Postdoctoral Researcher at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Radiolarians are single-celled marine organisms that have the ability to fix intricate, siliceous skeletons. This group of organism have captured the attention of artist and geologist alike due to their skeletal diversity and complexity that can be observed in rocks from the Cambrian to the present. As a virtue of their silica skeletons, small size and abundance, radiolarian skeletons can potentially exist in most fine-grained marine deposits as long as their preservation is good. This includes mudstones, hard shales, limestones and cherts. To recover radiolarians from a rock, acid digestion is commonly required. For cherts, 12-24 hours in 5 % hydrofluoric acid is needed to liberate radiolarians. Specimens are collected on a 63 µm sieve and prepared for transmitted light or scanning electron microscope analysis.

Animation of radiolarian diversity. Credit: Sarah Kachovich

Scale and diversity of modern radiolarians. Credit: Sarah Kachovich (radiolarians from IODP Expedition 362) and Adrianna Rajkumar (hair).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improving the biostratigraphical potential of radiolarians

The radiolarian form has changed drastically through time and by figuratively “standing on the shoulders of giants”, we correlate forms from well-studied sections to determine an age of an unknown sample. A large effort of my PhD was aimed to progress, previously stagnant, research in radiolarian evolution and systematics in an effort to improve the biostratigraphical potential of spherical radiolarians, especially from the Early Palaeozoic. The end goal of this work is to improve the biostratigraphy method and its utility, thus increasing our understanding of the mountain building processes.

The main problem with older deposits is the typical states of preservation, where radiolarians partly or totally lose their transparency, which makes traditional illustration with simple transmitted light optics difficult. Micro-computed tomography (µ-CT) has been adopted in fields as diverse as the mineralogical, biological, biophysical and anatomical sciences. Although the implementation in palaeontology has been steady, µ-CT has not displaced more traditional imaging methods, despite its often superior performance.

Animation of an Ordovician radiolarian skeleton in 3D imaged through µ-CT. Credit: Sarah Kachovich

To study small complex radiolarian skeletons, you need to mount a single specimen and scan it at the highest resolution of the µ-CT. The µ-CT method is much like a CAT scan in a hospital, where X-rays are imaged at different orientations, then digitally stitched together to reconstruct a 3D model. The vital function of the internal structures provides new insights to early radiolarian morphologies and is a step towards creating a more robust biostratigraphy for radiolarians in the Early Paleozoic.

Linking radiolarian fossils to tectonics

Radiolarian chert is important to Himalayan geologists as it provides a robust tool to better document and interpret the age and consumption of oceanic lithosphere that once intervened India and Asia before their collision.The chert that directly overlies pillow basalt in the ophiolite sequence (remnant oceanic lithosphere) represents the minimum age constraint of its formation. In the Himalayas, over 2000 km of ocean has been consumed as India rifted from Western Australia and migrated north to collide with Asia. Only small slivers of ophiolite and overlying radiolarian cherts are preserved in the suture zone and it is our job to determine how these few ophiolite puzzle pieces fit together.

Another way I have been able to link microfossils to Himalayan tectonics is by studying the history and source of erosion from the Himalayas on board IODP Expedition 362. Sedimentation rates obtained from deep sea drilling can provide ages of various tectonic events related to the India-Asia collision. For example, we were able to date various events such as the collision of the Ninety East Ridge with the Sumatra subduction zone, which chocked off the sediment supply to the Nicobar basin around 2 Ma as the ridge collided with the subduction zone.

Left: Results from the McNeill et al. (2017) of the sedimentation history of Bengal Fan (green dots) and Nicobar Fan (red dots). Middle/right: Reconstruction of India and Asia for the past 9 million years showing the sediment source from the Himalayas to both basins on either side of the Ninety East Ridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, on board Expedition 362 we were able to use microfossils to understand how and why big earthquakes happen. We targeted the incoming sediments to the Sumatra subduction zone that were partly responsible for the globally 3rd largest recorded earthquake (Mw≈9.2). This earthquake occurred in 2004 and produced a tsunami that killed more than 250,000 people.

From the seismic profiles (see example below), we found that the seismic horizon where the pre-decollement formed coincided with a thick layer of biogenetically rich sediment (e.g. radiolarians, sponge spicules, etc.) found whilst drilling. Under the weight of the overlying Nicobar Fan sediments, this critical layer of biogenic silica is undergoing diagenesis and fresh water is being chemically released into the sediments. The fresh water within these sediments is moving into the subduction zone where it has implications to the physical properties of the sediment and the morphology of the forearc region.

The Sumatra subduction zone. The dark orange zone represents the rupture area of the 2004 earthquake. Also shown are the drill sites of IODP Expedition 362 and the location of seismic lines across the plate boundary.

Seismic profile: The fault that develops between the two tectonic plates (the plate boundary fault) forms at the red dotted line. Note the location of the drill site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Hüpers, A., Torres, M. E., Owari, S., McNeill, L. C., Dugan, & Expedition 362 Scientists, 2017. Release of mineral-bound water prior to subduction tied to shallow seismogenic slip. Science, 356: 841–844. doi:10.1126/science.aal3429

McNeill, L. C., Dugan, B., Backman, J., Pickering, K. T., & Expedition 362 Scientists 2017. Understanding Himalayan Erosion and the Significance of the Nicobar Fan. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 475: 134–142. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.07.019

EGU – Realm and Maze? An interview with Susanne Buiter, the current chair of the EGU Programme Committee

EGU – Realm and Maze? An interview with Susanne Buiter, the current chair of the EGU Programme Committee

source: ngu.no

Susanne Buiter is senior scientist and team leader at the Solid Earth Geology Team at the Geological Survey of Norway. She is also the chair of the EGU Programme Committee. This means that she leads the coordination of the scientific programme of the annual General Assembly. She assists the Division Presidents and Programme Group chairs when they build the session programme of their divisions, helps find a place for new initiatives and tries to solve issues that may arise. This also includes short courses, townhall and splinter meetings, great debates, events on arts and other events. The programme group also initiates discussions on how to include interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary science and how to accommodate the growth of the General Assembly. Questions: Micha Dietze, Annegret Larsen (both GM Early Career Representatives), and Anouk Beniest (EGU TS Early Career Representative)

 

Susanne, you are a perfect example of a scientist bridging scientific work with scientific management. What brought you to this and how do you manage keeping the balance?
I would not call it perfect! And I find it not so easy to keep a balance. I am very fortunate that my employer, the Geological Survey of Norway, recognises the importance of organisations like EGU for the geoscience community in Europe. That means that I can partly use working hours for EGU activities and that is a great help. For me, EGU fulfils an important task in bringing people together for networking, starting new projects, discuss new ideas and I would like to contribute to making that possible. I guess one thing led to the other, but what is important for me is that all activities are truly fun and rewarding.

 

It seems you have filled almost all the different possible jobs within the EGU: giving talks, discussing posters, judging presentations, convening sessions, coordinating ECS activities like short courses, acting as Programme Group member and leader, serving as TS Division President, and now working as Programme Committee Chair. Could you describe what the main goals of the EGU are for you, and what brought you to become such an active member of the EGU community?
I see the role of EGU as serving the geoscience community through enabling networking, discussions and information sharing. Our General Assembly is very important for this and also our journals. I love the outreach and education that EGU does, through the GIFT programme and attempts to interact with politics and funding agencies. By the way, the short courses are for and by all participants, including the ECS, but not only!

I would really like to encourage ECS to submit session proposals during our call-for-sessions in Summer. And please consider to submit your abstract with oral preference, so conveners can schedule ECS talks.

 

Could you shed some light on the structure of this big ship called EGU in a few sentences?
What characterises EGU is that the union is by the community and for the community. EGU has a small office in Munich that oversees the day-to-day operations and coordinates our media activities (www.egu.eu). They are also EGUs long-term memory. We have 22 divisions from Atmosphere Sciences AS to Tectonics and Structural Geology TS. The division presidents are usually also chair of their associated Programme Group, with the same abbreviations AS, BG, CL etc that you see in our programme at the General Assembly in Vienna. They schedule their parts of the conference programme. For this, programme group chairs rely on the work of conveners (you!) to propose and organise sessions. Division presidents are also member of EGU’s council, together with EGU’s executives. Here decisions are taken on budgets, committee work, new executive editors of journals etc. EGU has among others committees for awards, education, outreach, publications and topical events (https://www.egu.eu/structure/committees/). Copernicus is hired by EGU for organisation of the General Assembly and publication of the 17 journals (https://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/). All EGU journals are open access. Sorry, that was rather more than a few sentences…

 

How flexible – in your experience – is the EGU administration and organization on a scale of 1-10?
A 9! I would have like to say a 10, but improvements are always possible. The EGU office, executives, divisions and committees put a lot of effort in coordinating all activities. We actually rely on flexibility as EGU is bottom-up. This is also how new initiatives find a place. For example, EGU2018 will have a cartoonist-in-residence and a poet-in-residence, a new activity I am very excited about and that was proposed by participants.

 

Regarding the ECS, which role do you feel should they play at EGU level? What is running very well and what would you like to change? Where do you think are fields where you see opportunities to become more active?
About half of participants to our General Assembly identify as ECS according to the survey from 2017 and abstract submission statistics for 2018. So they should play an important role! Not only in the General Assembly, but also in our committees. The ECS representatives are important for their feedback to council, making the ECS opinions heard, and starting new activities, such as the networking reception, many short courses, and the ECS lounge. What I would like to change? More ECS session conveners please! I would really like to encourage ECS to submit session proposals during our call-for-sessions in Summer. And please consider to submit your abstract with oral preference, so conveners can schedule ECS talks.

 

What is most important for ECS to know about the EGU structure?
Know your ECS representative. At the General Assembly, come to the ECS forum on Thursday at lunch time and the ECS corner at the icebreaker. Connect with scientists in your division(s) by attending the division meeting.

 

From your perspective, what can we do to motivate more ECS to actively shape “their” EGU?
It is building on what you already do: share information on EGU, the divisions, that we are bottom-up and therefore rely on suggestions by community members. Encourage ECS to suggest sessions, volunteer as committee member when there are vacancies (these are advertised on www.egu.eu and through social media), and organise activities at, before and after the General Assembly. Encourage ECS to use the conference in Vienna to network with all participants, not only through ECS channels, and find new opportunities that way. My observation is that many experienced scientists love to discuss with ECS and perhaps even start new collaborations.

 

Which ways and approaches do you see to better connect ECS within and between Programme Groups?
I find especially connections *between* Programme Groups very interesting, not only for ECS. EGU is growing to a size that it has become more difficult to find time to look outside your own bubble. We have been investigating ways to make our programme more interdisciplinary and perhaps in the future also transdisciplinary, to try to create new approaches. That said, I am happy to see at the ice-breaker and networking reception that many ECS identify with more than one division! It is important to cross borders, that is where a lot of exciting research happens.

 

The mentoring programme is a rather new feature for many divisions. Could you give some feedback on how it went last year? Will it be a permanent item during the EGU General Assembly?
We organised the mentoring programme in 2017 as a pilot, which we on purpose kept somewhat low profile to generate feedback and develop our tools. We see the programme as a networking opportunity for both first-time and experienced attendees. Feedback was very positive, so we are rolling out in full this year. We offer matching, two meeting opportunities at the General Assembly and some guidance.

I encourage people to try a PICO presentation or convening a PICO session. I have run some poster-only sessions last years, which have been great fun as we had so much more time for discussions.

 

The EGU General Assembly can be overwhelming at first. What would you advice young (and not so young) researchers to do to have a successful meeting?
Attend short course SC2.1 on how to navigate the EGU (Monday at 08:30), read the first-timer’s guide to the General Assembly, and make sure you are on the mailing list for your division ECS representatives if they have one. Some divisions have an ECS evening event, do attend! Consider taking part in the mentoring programme of course. And prepare a personal programme before heading to Vienna. Not to follow it in detail, but at least to know where to go for talks, PICO, short courses, posters, and events. I would definitely use the General Assembly to talk to other participants, this is a great chance to expand your network.

 

Time and space are precious during the EGU General Assembly. There are over 10.000 contributions, many aiming at a talk, but ending up as posters, the session rooms are often overcrowded, the lunch break brings a rush and long queues. Is there any way the Union Council considers to improve certain bottle necks or are we already at the maximum of optimizing some of the conference logistics?
In 2017, we had ca. 17,400 presentations and 14,500 participants. We rented a new hall on the forecourt of the conference centre, which we will also have in 2018. This increased the conference space, taking pressure off the rooms and surely reduced queues. Copernicus and EGU work continuously on optimising the scheduling. We also started a broader discussion on future formats of the General Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage trying a PICO presentation or convening a PICO session. I have run some poster-only sessions the last years, which have been great fun as we had so much better time for discussions.

 

Many ECS approach their representatives because they are worried or disappointed to see their initiatives for scientific session proposals not succeeding. Instead they find year after year the same names behind established and crowded sessions. Do you have any advice how to deal with this or do you think this is not really an issue?
I am aware that this may unfortunately play for some sessions, but overall I think we cater well to new initiatives. My advice to Programme Group chairs is to encourage ECS conveners for new sessions and also to include ECS as part of long-running sessions that should rotate, and renew, conveners each year. Our General Assembly offers place for sessions on the basics and fields that require long-term developments, and at the same time also on new, emerging topics. Sometimes these sessions on upcoming topics may be small in number of submissions, but large in attendance. The best I can say to anyone is to discuss concerns or feedback regarding convening with the division president and the ECS division representative.

 

With the growing amount of members and participants (almost) every year, how do you see the EGU’s future both as a community and as one of the most important events?
EGU is an important voice of the Earth and space science community in Europe. I think the union should continue to do what it is good at: providing a platform for networking, discussions on new and old fun topics, and information sharing. I would like EGU to stay flexible and cater to new formats in its journals and at its General Assembly, the latter also in light of discussions on CO2 costs of meetings.

 

Thank you Susanne!
Could I emphasize again that EGU is bottom-up and depends on input from our communities? So please contact your ECS representative, the division president or me (programme.committee@egu.eu) with ideas and feedback!

 

Some more information online here:
www.egu.eu
https://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2018/information/programme_committee
https://www.egu.eu/gm/home/
https://www.egu.eu/gm/ecs/
http://www.geodynamics.no/buiter/

 

 

You’re an early career scientist and you want to go somewhere… but where?

You’re an early career scientist and you want to go somewhere… but where?

Only a few more days and the General Assembly of the EGU 2017 will start! Five exciting days with science and the opportunity to meet your colleagues and collaborators, both the old and the new. Earlier this week the outgoing TS President Susanne Buiter and the incoming TS President Claudio Rosenberg posted a blog with TS highlights, but what are the must-see for the Early Career Scientists? This is where we, outgoing TS ECS reps, come in! So we provide here tips for the hottest TS ECS events the coming week.

 

Meetings/socials:

Don’t forget to come for dinner with the other TS ECS at Brandauers Bierbogen (Heiligenstädter Str. 31) on Monday, at 20h.

We welcome everyone to the ECS corner at the icebreaker on Sunday. Pick up your badge, meet old and new friends at Foyer E, from 18h30 to 21h.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25204

The TS Division Meeting is on Wednesday, 12h15-13h15. Lunch will be provided. What happened within the TS Division last year? What are the plans for next year?

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25276

Come give feedback! Your new TS ECS representative Anouk Beniest organizes an informal get-together over lunch on Thursday. We meet at 12h15 at the EGU flags just outside the building, we’ll get a sandwich and find a nice spot to sit and chat on how to improve things for TS ECS. All are welcome!

Meet your reps! The EGU Division President Claudio Rosenberg and the outgoing ECS Representatives Anne Pluymakers and João Duarte plus the incoming ECS Representative Anouk Beniest! They will all be at the EGU booth on Thursday from 14h15 to 15h.

 

Short courses:

For those of you who have not been to Vienna before, start the week with a crash course on how to navigate EGU as a first-timer, on Monday from 8h30 to 10h in Room -2.31. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25606#

If you like fully open access and transparent publishing, you should consider the course on how to publish in EGU journals: Solid Earth and Earth Surface Dynamics. Meet the Editors on Monday, 13h30 – 15h in room -2.91.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25617

Of course we would love to see more TS-related research, also by the youngsters! So come to ‘How to write a successful ERC Grant proposal’ on Tuesday, 13h30 – 15h, in room -2.91.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25127

Publish more pretty pictures to show of those beautiful structures with ‘Virtual Polarizing Microscopy in Petrology and Microtectonics’ on Wednesday 10h30 – 12h00, in room -2.16. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25156

 

Debates:

After open access publishing, we seem to transition now towards open science: all data available for everyone. Is this really the way to go? Come to the panel debate on Thursday, 15h30-17h in Room E1.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25038

With the decreased amounts of funding and less and less permanent jobs the pressure of ‘publish or perish’ is mounting. What is the best way of judging early career scientists? Come to the group debates on Wednesday 19h-20h30 in room G1.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25040

If you have a disability or chronic condition and want to find out more about the Chronically Academic Network and the type of support it provides, this is the meeting to attend. This meeting will also gather some information that will be provided to EGU to make the GA and EGU in general more accessible – so your input is much appreciated. Come come! Thursday 12h15 – 13h15 to room Room 2.61

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25644

 

Sessions:

Every TS session is an ECS session! So browse the program, and look for something that captures your interest, either directly inside your field or just outside. Due to its size EGU is the perfect conference to look across the boundary into other fields. Create your program online and download it into the EGU2017 app for Apple and Android.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/egu2017/app

If you have no other plans, come to the Arne Richter Award lecture by outgoing ECS rep João Duarte “The Future of Earth’s Oceans: consequences of subduction invasion in the Atlantic” on Wednesday 9h30–10h in Room D3.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/25355

Equal opportunities for all! On Friday there are talks from women in geosciences from 10h30 to 12h15 in Room L4/5  and on equal opportunities in general from 13h30–17h in Room L4/5.

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/23685

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/23686

 

These and other sessions for ECS across all program groups can be found at http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessions-of-special-interest/ECS

 

written by: Anne Pluymakers and João Duarte, outgoing TS ECS reps

photo credits: TS Twitter and Facebook pages and EGU blog

Introducing our Early Career Scientist Team

This week we would like to introduce the Early Career Scientist team of Tectonics and Structural Geology community. Behind the activities organized during EGU and the year-round contacts on social media there is not only 1 single person who is responsible, but a team of people. So here you can read a bit more about each individual and their favorite type of rock science, which simultaneously showcases the entire breadth of topics covered by Tectonics and Structural Geology.

If you’re an Early Career Scientist and want to get involved too, please contact Anne Pluymakers.

 

ECS representatives

anneAnne Pluymakers

I am a post-doc at Physics of Geological Processes, or PGP, in Oslo, Norway. My background is in experimental geomechanics with emphasis on fluid-rock interactions. My current projects are mostly related to shale and CO2. Within the TS team, I am one of the two current ECS representatives. This means I coordinate the different TS activities organized by the team members, and that I also connect to the ECS representatives of the other divisions, and of course to the Division President. What I like best about working in academia is that you’re not only stuck behind a desk, but you also get to build things as well as break some rocks.

 

joaoJoão Duarte

I am an early career researcher at the Instituto Dom Luiz, University of Lisbon, Portugal, where I coordinate the marine geology and geophysics group. I work in the intersection of marine geology, tectonics and geodynamic modelling, with a special focus in the Azores-Gibraltar (Africa-Eurasia) plate boundary. My running projects cover the topics of subduction initiation and supercontinental cycles.  I am co-representative of the TS-ECS. Together with the enthusiastic team of bright ECS presented here we organize a lot of exciting activities within EGU. I am passionate about science communication and I love to share the fun of understanding the workings of the Earth with the general public.

 

The team

Blogmasters

elenoraElenora van Rijsingen

I am a PhD student in Rome and Montpellier, as part of the ITN project CREEP. I study the relationship between the roughness of subducting seafloor and seismogenic behaviour of subduction zones, by using natural data and analogue experiments. Besides that, I also really enjoy being involved in any type of outreach activities. Within the TS team, I am editor of this TS blog, together with Mehmet Köküm. This means that I write blog posts, but also invite other people to write a guest blog.  The reason I became a geologist is because I love how everything on and within the earth is connected, at scales that we humans can hardly even imagine.

 

mehmetMehmet Köküm

I am a 3rd year Phd student and Research Assistant major in Geology at Firat University in Turkey. My PhD involves fault kinematic analyses, using fault slip data obtained from fault surface. I am a field geologist and work on geological mapping, structural geology and active tectonics. I also use remote sensing techniques and digital elevation models to trace the geometry of an active fault. Within the TS team, Elenora van Rijsingen and I are the current EGU Bloggers. We work together to keep the TS Blog on the EGU website up-to-date. If you have any ideas for guest blogs, feel free to contact us!

 

Team members

subhajitSubhajit Ghosh

I am a doctoral research student at the Department of Geology, University of Calcutta in Kolkata, India. By training, I am a structural geologist at the Experimental Tectonics Laboratory (ETL). We mostly work on experimental modelling of different geodynamic and geological processes and rock deformation from micro to meso-scale. My PhD is about understanding the temporal as well as the spatial evolution of the fold-thrust belts in a collisional setting. I also use sandbox models to investigate the neo-tectonic activity of seismically active orogenic fronts. My field area is the eastern Himalaya (Darjeeling-Sikkim). Field trips in the Himalayas are evergreen and enriching for me as it renders exposures to many unknown places and with different sort of life, culture and food. Being part of the ECS-TS team is a fascinating experience; it is great to connect with so many young researchers like myself from all over the world and to become acquainted with their scientific pursuits.

 

annaAnna Rogowitz

I am currently postdoctoral researcher in the structural processes group at the Department of Geodynamics and Sedimentology (University of Vienna, Austria). My research focusses on the (broad) field of strain localization processes in the ductile regime of the lithosphere. After studying the deformation behaviour of calcite marbles for years, I decided to move a bit deeper in the Earth’s interior, and recently started a project on the rheology of eclogites. I love my job for many reasons, which I can’t possibly all list here, but the most recent one I discovered is how incredible fun it is to teach microtectonics! Within the ECS-team, I help in the organization of the ECS dinner during the EGU General Assembly. I also currently try, together with a few others, to organize a pre-EGU field trip for early career scientists.

 

anoukAnouk Beniest

I am a PhD candidate at the ‘Institut des Sciences de la Terre de Paris’, or ISTeP in Paris. I have a background in structural geology and petrology. My PhD project is about the geodynamics of rifted margins, looking at the effects of large-scale, thermal processes on basin-scale processes using a thermo-mechanical and a petroleum system model. Within the TS team, I do the ECS-Monday and jobs-on-Friday announcements on Facebook. This means that I am continuously looking for recent Tectonics/Structural Geology publications by our ECS colleagues, so if you have a publication, send it to the ECS/TS team and it might land on the page! Why did I choose to study geology in the first place? Well, I couldn’t really choose between studying physics/chemistry/mathematics, or spending the rest of my life travelling. I figured a career in geosciences could combine all of my interests. So far, I have not been disappointed and I am looking forward to the challenges and exotic places yet to come.

 

marieMarie Etchebes

I obtained my PhD in geophysics at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, and followed by a post-doc at Earth Observatory of Singapore. As part of my PhD and postdoc, I have been mainly involved in understanding the geometry, kinematics and mechanics of fault systems. My main goal has been to understand how earthquake ruptures repeat through time and space along a given fault or within a fault system. To achieve this goal, I have studied quantitatively the response of geomorphic landscapes to earthquake-induced deformation. Since March 2014, I am a structural geologist at Schlumberger Stavanger Research center (Norway). My main topics cover user-guided automated technologies for fault extraction and characterization from seismic surveys; for realistic geometric and kinematic 3D fault models building;  for structural restoration and paleo-stress analysis, for geomechanical forward modeling And analysis/integration of digital outcrop analogues.

 

rolandRoland Neofitu

I am a M.Sc. student at LMU Munich. My main background lies in tectonics and structural geology. Most of my work involves the tectonics and rift propagation of the southern segments of the East African Rift.  I do this by fault mapping from DEM and satellite data, as well as by studying uplift maps. I am a recent addition to the TS team, so I hope to be able to make an active contribution to the group soon. My favorite moment as a geologist was seeing the Carboneras fault for the first time at Sopalmo, Spain. I became a geologist because of the field work that can be done at amazing places. I hope to be able to visit the East African Rift as well soon.