Any site with trees / national — public land collection/close approach only where permitted
Lichen air-quality bioindication survey (growth-form presence/absence) — site / national.
Survey lichen growth forms on trees at your site as a free air-quality bioindicator. Read all of it
Not funded yet. Settles as earned credit, $115 proposed.
Proof it takes, the deadline, the level
- Proof5 to 10 trees surveyed for lichen growth form + Fruticose, foliose, crustose presence photographed per tree + Substrate, tree species recorded for context + Pollution gradient noted as possibility, never determination + Confident IDs submitted to iNaturalist or a lichen project + Uncertain IDs flagged as uncertain
- Open until2027-01-27
- Levelentry
All of it: the words, the place, the proof
Survey lichen growth forms on trees at your site as a free air-quality bioindicator. Air-quality monitors are sparse and expensive, but lichens are free, everywhere, and have no cuticle to filter what they absorb. They have tracked air pollution since Hawksworth & Rose's 1970 UK sulphur-dioxide scale. A keeper-level growth-form survey turns a walk through a park or yard into an honest bioindication record, with the field's own documented limit stated up front: species composition, not just lichen presence, is what modern nitrogen-pollution research actually reads.
Fund it for $115. The receipt lands onchain once the proof is approved.
How this work is done
How this work is done
A documented method, so this packet comes out the same whoever does it.
Bring
- camera with macro capability
- hand lens or loupe
- tape measure or diameter tape
- notebook or data sheet
- smartphone with iNaturalist app
- tree/plant ID guide or app
Steps
- 1. Select a defined sample of trees at the site (5 to 10 of the same or similar species) to control for bark chemistry differences between species.
- 2. Record the species, approximate age or trunk diameter, and GPS location of each sampled tree.
- 3. Examine the trunk from ground level up to about 2 meters, and record lichen presence or absence by growth form: fruticose (shrubby, most pollution-sensitive), foliose (leafy), and crustose (crust-like, most pollution-tolerant).
- 4. Photograph each growth form found on each tree, and photograph any tree with no lichen growth at all (a 'lichen desert') in the same way.
- 5. Note visible site context that could affect the reading independent of air quality: bark texture, tree lean, sun exposure, and proximity to a road or known emission source.
- 6. Where a lichen can be identified to species with confidence from the photo, submit it to iNaturalist (or a FunDiS/lichen-focused project) for community/expert verification, flagging any uncertain ID as such.
- 7. Record an honest note on which pollution gradient the observed pattern might reflect: an SO2-legacy lichen-desert pattern versus a nitrogen-favoring pattern (nitrophilous species dominant over sensitive species), stating this as a possibility, never a determination.
- 8. State clearly in the record that this survey does not produce a calibrated air-quality index, since that requires certified-lichenologist-level species identification.
- 9. Log all tree records, growth-form photos, and the gradient note into the proof record with date and site GPS.
What counts as done
- A defined sample (e.g. 5-10 trees of the same or similar species) surveyed for lichen presence/absence by growth form (fruticose, foliose, crustose) with photographs of each growth form found
- Substrate and tree species recorded for context (bark chemistry affects which lichens grow, independent of air quality)
- An honest note on which gradient the pattern might reflect (SO2-legacy 'lichen desert' vs nitrogen-favoring dominance of nitrophilous species) — recorded as a POSSIBILITY, never a determination
- Any confident species-level photo submitted to iNaturalist (or a FunDiS/lichen-focused project) for community/expert verification, with uncertain IDs flagged as such
Proof is measured against these, not judged by taste.
What is promised, and what is not
Three separate acts, never one: a vote is a free signed preference that moves no money; a pledge is free signed backing intent, balance-checked, that moves no money and never marks the packet funded; funding is a real payment that backs the wage. Funding starts at one cent, an omitted amount pays what the packet still needs, and only an explicit amount above the remaining is recorded as a premium for the worker. Money settles only on accepted proof. An agent can fund it in one x402 call: POST /nurture/fund {"workId":"WORK_1788125417265_5u1jyv4","funderWallet":"0xYOU"}.
Claiming is free. You sign to prove the wallet is yours: no card, no deposit, no fee. Vote, Pledge and Fund are three separate acts: a vote is a free preference, a pledge is free signed backing intent that moves no money, and funding is a real payment.
An agent can claim this for you with one call to POST /labor/claim, documented at /llms.txt.
Every stage this packet actually passes, claim to settlement, is public in its receipt trail. A stage that has not happened is not claimed.
Posted pay is not paid pay: settlement follows accepted proof, never the other way around. Vealth does not employ or vet workers, and claiming is not a promise of payment. See how proof and receipts work.
Other acts: vote, pledge, fund
Packet WORK_1788125417265_5u1jyv4