Any site with trees / Corvallis, OR: public land collection/close approach only where permitted
Lichen air-quality bioindication survey (growth-form presence/absence) — Corvallis, OR.
Survey lichen growth forms on trees near Corvallis 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 until2027-02-24
- Levelentry
All of it: the words, the place, the proof
Survey lichen growth forms on trees near Corvallis as a free air-quality bioindicator. This standard's own nitrogen-deposition co-author works from the US Forest Service program based here.
Fund it for $115. Proof lands onchain when it's done.
How this work is done
How this work is done
A documented method, so this packet comes out the same whoever does it.
Bring
- A phone camera for photographing each lichen growth form found
- A hand lens (10x) for close examination of growth form and substrate attachment
- A defined survey area or a fixed set of trees (e.g. 5-10 trees of the same species where possible, to control for bark-chemistry differences)
- A free iNaturalist account (or Mushroom Observer) for photo submission
Steps
- 1. Choose a defined survey area (e.g. a park, yard, or block) and select a sample: ideally 5-10 trees of the same or similar species, since bark chemistry (pH, texture) affects which lichens grow independent of air quality.
- 2. At each tree, examine the trunk from ground level to about head height and record which lichen growth forms are present: fruticose (shrubby, 3-D, attached at a single point), foliose (leaf-like, flattened, loosely attached), crustose (paint-like, fused tightly to the bark), or none (bare bark — a possible 'lichen desert').
- 3. Photograph each growth form found, including a close-up with the hand lens where possible, plus a whole-trunk context shot.
- 4. Record substrate/tree species and general site context (proximity to roads, industry, or agriculture) as observational context only — never a causal claim from this packet.
- 5. Write an honest note on which gradient the pattern COULD reflect: a scarcity of fruticose/foliose lichens (a 'lichen desert') is consistent with the classic SO2-pollution pattern (Hawksworth & Rose 1970); a site dominated by crustose or visibly 'weedy' species near traffic or agriculture could instead reflect nitrogen-favoring dominance (Geiser & Neitlich 2007) — record this as a POSSIBILITY, never a determination, and never as a calibrated index.
- 6. For any lichen photographed with enough diagnostic detail for a confident species-level guess, submit it to iNaturalist (or the FunDiS/regional lichen project) for community and expert verification; record uncertain IDs as uncertain.
- 7. Repeat the same defined survey area/trees on a seasonal or yearly cadence to build a comparable trend, rather than treating a single visit as a conclusion.
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_1790539267485_o98gc39","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_1790539267485_o98gc39