Justin C. Luong

Justin C. Luong
University of California, Davis | UCD · Department of Plant Sciences

Doctor of Philosophy

About

14
Publications
1,475
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
17
Citations
Introduction
Justin Luong currently is a PhD student in the Loik Lab at UC Santa Cruz in the Environmental Studies Department. He is also an research affiliate of the Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration, University of California, Santa Barbara. Justin does research in Environmental Science, Restoration Ecology, Climate Change and Plant-Insect Interactions.

Publications

Publications (14)
Article
Full-text available
In coastal California dune ecosystems protect coastal cities from damaging storms and provide habitat for native wildlife. Despite the economic and ecological importance of coastal dunes, habitat loss has continued and is predicted to accelerate with a changing climate. To combat the effects of climate change and ensure that coastal dunes will pers...
Article
Full-text available
Woody species encroachment is increasingly displacing grasslands, negatively impacting regional plant richness and reducing economic productivity from grazing. Although intermediate disturbance has been found to reduce woody species encroachment and maximize species diversity, ecological restoration can often lead to many small, infrequent disturba...
Article
Climate change will increase uncertainty in restoration outcomes due to greater water stress and other abiotic filters that limit plant survival. Drought related plant functional traits can help species withstand filters in a semi‐arid environment. Our objective was to provide guidance for selecting species to improve restoration success in a chang...
Article
Full-text available
Drought and competition affect how morphological and physiological traits are expressed in plants. California plants were previously found to respond less negatively to resource limitation compared to invasive counterparts. In a glasshouse in Santa Cruz, CA, USA, we exposed five native California C3 grassland species to episodic drought and competi...
Article
Extensive evidence shows that regional (gamma) diversity is often lower across restored landscapes than in reference landscapes, in part due to common restoration practices that favor widespread species through selection of easily-grown species with high survival and propagation practices that reduce genetic diversity. We discuss approaches to coun...
Article
Scientists who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or members of other marginalized sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) face serious disparities compared to their non‐LGBTQ+ peers. Restoration science presents additional risks for LGBTQ+ researchers, including extensive time in the field – sometimes in locations t...
Article
Full-text available
The reintroduction of endangered plant species is an essential conservation tool. Reintroductions can fail to create resilient, self‐sustaining populations due to a poor understanding of environmental factors that limit or promote plant success. Biotic factors, specifically plant–arthropod interactions, have been shown to affect the establishment o...
Article
Full-text available
California is predicted to experience warmer temperatures and more frequent droughts in future years, which will increase local and regional climatic water deficit. Understanding how commonly used restoration species will respond to drought may help with approaches to mediate the negative impacts of changing climates on restoration. Associated plan...
Poster
Full-text available
1. Can functional traits explain drought-induced changes in plant community composition? Yes, leaf C:N and lobedness help explain the differences between communities in ambient rainfall and drought plots. 2. Can key traits or phylogenetic relationships explain mortality risk of restoration plantings? Yes, leaf lobedness and growth rate predicted pl...
Poster
Full-text available
Goals Determine the success of grassland restoration efforts in California in relation to original project goals and compared to similar projects. Determine management practices that are associated with greater success and are cost effective. Determine the primary obstacles that restoration practitioners face in improving restoration success. Prel...

Questions

Questions (3)
Question
Hi -
Has anyone ever had the issue when they are doing Loss on ignition analysis in a muffler oven at 1000C? Previously I worked with a newer muffler oven and had no issues weighing and baking soils at 1000C. I recently started using an different muffler oven which is a little older, but is properly functioning. I baked my soils and crucibles at 550C and it was fine. I then turned it up to 1000C and baked it at 1000C for 6 hours and turned it down to 105C to take the crucibles out after cooling. However, after I took the crucibles out all of them seemed to be changing colors from neutral ceramic white to green from the bottom up. Also it looks like there are small crystals or precipitate forming on the crucibles, more densely from the bottom up. Attached are a couple of pictures. Does anyone have any experience with this or have any suggestions on how to get to the bottom of this or fix it?
Edit: I just want to note I tried to clean these crucibles with an HCl acid bath, and the greenness did not go away and the precipitate crystals seems to arise once it is fully dry again.
Question
Hi all,
I have submitted a paper for publication in June 2017 and I am wondering how long people generally wait? I submitted to a relatively small journal, Impact Factor ~ 1, and waited over 8 months for my first response from them (while their home page says it is generally 185 days ~ 6 months). I emailed them a couple of times during the process for a check, but they just said there is nothing they could do and they are waiting for the reviewer. I worked on the revisions promptly and returned them after a week. I was then told again that I would have to wait (this time about 2-3 weeks for a second revision). I got it back (2 months later) and it was conditionally accepted with more revisions requested. Again I worked on it promptly and re-submitted. Now it has been almost 3 months again. Prior they told me that revisions in this stage only take 2-3 weeks (and last time they had to switch out a reviewer because they took so long, after my requests). Now I am not sure what to do, it feels like their deadlines keep getting pushed back, and they say there's nothing they can do and there has not been an update since the day after I submitted it. Should I request new reviewers or is that just the way it is? It has been over 16 months since I originally submitted the article.
Question
The plant being studied is a small, annual, endangered lupine (wildflower; forb). Although seeds are dehissed from pods they do not travel very far. Would using just one slope with multiple replicates of a treatment on that one slope be considered psuedoreplication if they are distant enough and they have different microhabitat conditions?

Network

Cited By