Posts

Posted on

Trinity’s Wildflower Meadow: A Success Story

by Aoife Robertson

The wildflower meadow outside the front gates of Trinity College Dublin.

In February 2020, a Trinity Green Campus poll was held amongst Trinity College Dublin (TCD) staff and students to convert the lawns of Front Gate into a wildflower meadow. Of the 13,850 people who voted, 12,496 voted in favour, a 90% majority. This was the largest number of participants that Trinity Green Campus had ever had, likely due to the extensive communications regarding the campaign, with features being included on local, national, and international news channels. The project has been deemed a success with support from both the public and TCD community and it continues to flourish outside the historic Front Gate of TCD. The TCD wildflower meadow is one of many similar “rewilding” projects that are currently being undertaken to increase biodiversity in urban and rural spaces but why are they such a popular rewilding choice? And how can we ensure their success?

Oliver Goldsmith among the ‘wildflowers’ at Trinity College Dublin. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Let’s take it that any project, ecological or otherwise, can be deemed successful if it has fulfilled the goals that it set out to achieve. The majority of rewilding and restoration projects aim to introduce species to an ecosystem as a way of restoring ecosystem functions and re-establishing natural processes that existed previously. In the case of wildflower meadows, the species being introduced are herbaceous plants and the ecosystem functions that they aim to restore usually relate to pollination or biodiversity, although this is not always the case. Even the broadest generalisation of the aims of wildflower meadows lacks clarity on the type of ecosystem functions that are expected to be restored. This is due to the aims of any restoration effort being dependent on the social and cultural views of the people carrying out or interacting with the project. Therefore, each individual wildflower meadow project must define the unique aims pertaining to it before a decision can be made on its success.

The two most documented spatial differences are between North America and Europe. In North America, the landscapes that were present before European colonisers have long been idolised and perpetuated as the “perfect wilderness,” with many attempts being made to conserve and restore these ecosystem types. As such, projects which aim to restore pre-colonisation landscapes are often deemed to be successful and are well received by the public. Large wildflower meadows that are re-planted in areas that previously were inhabited by similar species and vegetative communities are also deemed successful and serve as a reminder of the great prairies and grasslands of 1500’s North America. However, when urban wildflower meadows are planted many North Americans question whether it is truly restoration, since there were no previous wildflower meadows present here which can be said to be restored. Therefore, if the aim of this example is to be an act of restoration or rewilding the project is unable to be successful.

Contrasting to this, European rewilding does not explicitly try to recreate a single period, owing to the long established agricultural and industrial disturbance that has been occurring in the area since ~7000 B.C.. Therefore, the matter of projects emulating an exact period does not cause the same obstacles to success that are seen in North America. Instead, a range of dates are replicated, from Pleistocene to pre-industrial. There is a much lesser demand for projects on the large scales seen in North America, with the reintroduction of large carnivores causing public outcry. When concerning wildflower meadows, small pockets of pre-existing meadows or similar habitats are still naturally established in Europe, such as hedgerows and agricultural wildflower meadows. Thus, it is easier for people to view wildflower meadows projects as restoration.

Education also plays a key role in the success of wildflower meadows. Some studies have shown that the public perceives nature as consisting of trees and forested areas, and so projects that remove trees, even for positive environmental reasons, are perceived negatively. Other studies, however, have shown contrasting results, recording preferences towards annuals over larger trees or fruit plants. Interestingly, this same study also recorded that 54% of participants did not know what wildflowers were. This indicates that asking the public whether they prefer wildflowers over trees may not give accurate data as the responders are much more familiar with one subject over the other. Where images were shown, participants revealed a preference for wildflower meadows over images of herbaceous and formal bedding styles. The degree to which they preferred wildflower meadows over other bedding styles increased with an increase of plant species richness. This is a positive sign for those who wish to use wildflower meadows to restore pollinator and biodiversity functions, as it suggests that there should be public support of the projects if the public are adequately informed on wildflower meadows.

The TCD wildflower meadow project had clear goals, aiming to demonstrate that grass lawns were not the only option for planting in a formal setting. By prioritising the goal of informing the public on the project aims, TCD reduced arguments that may have otherwise arisen over the success of the project. Notably, before the project began, the idea was put to a vote by the staff and students at the college. As mentioned previously, the poll was hugely successful likely due to the amount of publicity it received. In order to combat any doubt surrounding the use of non-native species, information was provided about the reasoning for including non-native species and why they would be beneficial to the project, for example, the increased pollination potential of the site and the aesthetic benefits of the species chosen. The clear communication regarding the project appears to have ensured the wildflower meadows success. The public support for a wildflower project in the heart of the capital city centre could also in part be due to the site being in Europe. Alternatively, the public support could be due to the project being planted shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been hypothesised to have increased public appreciation for green spaces. Many of the questions posed remain unanswered due to the modernity of the topic and rapidly shifting public opinions. As developments occur, both academically and publicly, more light will be shed on the success of wildflower meadows and how projects can be best implemented. However, for now, debates on the topic should be encouraged and the public should be involved in the conversation. Wildflower meadows have a huge potential to educate people about their environment and can be implemented on many scales, being made suitable to whichever environment is present. The people managing these projects should consider the ecological and social environment within which they work and make efforts to adapt to the unique environment in which they may find themselves. There is plentiful research into the social dynamics of rewilding and restoration projects and so it can be concluded that the issue lies with project managers and a potential lack of consideration of the social factors at hand.

Aoife is a final year Environmental Sciences student at Trinity College Dublin who recently completed her undergraduate thesis with Dr Piggott and Dr Penk. She is interested in urban rewilding and quantitative ecology and hopes to work in these areas in the future.

Posted on

Restoring biodiversity in Irish farmland: the role of results-based payment schemes

by Stephen Mulkearn

When Melissa Jeuken was appointed to her new job as a shepherd to a 25-strong flock of old Irish goats on Howth Head last September, the news caught national and international attention. A rare breed of feral goats was being employed in an innovative attempt to keep the heather in check to curtail wildfires at the Dublin beauty spot, a natural solution to an increasingly destructive environmental problem. Utilising ecosystem processes such as grazing livestock to restore biodiversity is second nature to Melissa who grew up on her father Harry Jeuken’s farm in Lough Avalla, Co. Clare. Burren farmers such as the Jeukens have for many years used the seasonal movement of grazing animals to maintain the landscape’s rich grasslands, whose range of wildflowers from orchids to gentians gives this special area of conservation its unique floral diversity. Over 300 Burren farmers are now paid directly to protect biodiversity under such results-based payment schemes (RBPS).


Following accession to the EEC in 1973, the modernisation of Ireland’s agriculture sector led to increased intensification and environmental problems – more agricultural pollution from run-off and fertilizer, erosion of upland areas from over-grazing and habitat loss from land-use change. The mid-1990s saw agri-environmental schemes such as REPS attempt to address the growing imbalance between intensification and environmental issues. In areas with unique landscape features such as the Burren, however, the one-size-fits-all approach of REPS was found wanting, with a lack of buy-in from local farmers who felt the Burren’s unique set of needs were excluded. This led to one of the first RBPS in Ireland in 2004, the Burren LIFE programme, funded under a European Union scheme for climate action and the environment. There are now at least 8 other RBPS, whose efforts to conserve species range from the corncrake and hen harrier in the northwest and mid-west to the pearl mussel in the south. The majority of schemes are located in the west as a larger proportion of high nature value (HNV) farms are found there.


RBPS come under the general umbrella of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), of which there are hundreds globally, and are viewed as an important component of farmland biodiversity conservation not least because they directly involve farm owners in the protection of important ecosystems. However, a criticism of early agri-environmental schemes such as REPS was that payments to farmers were not yielding biodiversity results. So are RBPS any different?


There are accepted pros and cons to the results indicators used in scorecards indicating ecological integrity in RBPS. The indicators have worked well in the Burren,
where scores have risen for fields assessed and this has directly led to improvements in the conservation of species-rich grasslands. The presence of nests is an indicator of the conservation of farmland birds, and this is seen as a beneficial element of the scheme as it raises awareness of biodiversity among farmers and builds ownership. However, the presence of a nest does not guarantee chicks will fledge successfully. Therefore, the conservation outcome for any particular results indicator may not always be transparent, causing challenges when it comes to assessing the biodiversity impact.


Indeed, annual survey results for hen harrier reveal a 25% decline in the bird’s six habitat ranges since being designated within a Special Protection Area, with the burning of heathland and land-use change to forestry and windfarms the chief causes of the decline. On the other hand, changes in farmland practices such as delayed mowing initiated through Corncrake LIFE may be producing, in the absence of scientific studies, at least anecdotal increases in corncrake numbers.


With a third of Ireland’s farmland definable as HNV, the potential exists for RBPS expansion. HNV areas also include half of the country’s Natura 2000 sites, meaning efforts to increase the uptake of RBPS would also assist with the management of designated sites. However, there is a need to develop reliable indicators to assess improvements in farmland biodiversity and the mechanism may not exist within existing RBPS to achieve this.


The principles underpinning RBPS – locally-led, farmer-centred, results-based, adaptable – make them attractive for wider agricultural adoption only if more flexible structures are introduced in national and international policies. Environmental NGO reaction to the latest round of Common Agricultural Policy strategic planning has been unequivocal on the ongoing biodiversity challenges, with BirdWatch Ireland asserting that only between 2 and 5% of the €9.8 billion Irish CAP budget will be spent on ‘effective measures for biodiversity’ and that targeting of actions on HNV farmland, in particular is required. And these concerns seem justified. A 2020 study of the effects of increased afforestation found 13 of 44 birds of conservation concern had over 80% of their habitats afforested, resulting in a shift in avian community composition there.


RBPS are locally-led, multi-stakeholder conservation interventions which work from the bottom-up and include local communities in decision-making. They are an important, albeit currently marginal, element of the EU’s strategy to conserve biodiversity in agriculture. Being a relatively recent development, their contribution to restoring biodiversity has yet to be adequately quantified on an EU-wide scale. That they are producing initial positive results in certain locations may help avert further extinctions brought about by Ireland’s ensuing biodiversity crisis. However, with most Irish farming taking place outside HNV areas, the effect of RBPS on restoring biodiversity may be limited nationally, and many farmers could still find themselves choosing between continued intensification and abandonment as a result of current EU agricultural policies.

Posted on

Restoration of Irish farmland biodiversity: The role of results-based payment schemes

by Fergal Scully

Traditionally, Irish agriculture has been extensively managed; large hedgerows, semi-natural grasslands, wetland habitats, and low-input arable systems supported a complex assemblage of farmland biodiversity. Agricultural intensification on the back of ill-informed government subsidies has resulted in large scale habitat destruction and degradation. Agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss in Ireland. One in five species in Ireland is threatened with extinction, demonstrating the severity of the situation. Solving this issue is critical.

Agri-environment schemes


The interconnectedness of agriculture and nature has been recognized on a European scale. Since 1994 it has been compulsory for all EU member states to provide an agri-environment scheme, in which farmers receive payments to support the restoration and maintenance of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. This led to the introduction of Ireland’s first agri-environment scheme- the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS). Like the majority of agri-environment schemes in Europe, REPS was designed as an action-based scheme. Within such schemes, farmers are paid to complete generic tasks with little importance placed on actual results. This action-based system has continued in subsequent nationwide schemes, including Ireland’s current scheme, GLAS. Despite major investment in action-based schemes within the EU, farmland biodiversity continues to decline, creating questions regarding the suitability of this approach.


An alternative approach to agri-environment schemes is a results-based payment system. This is an output-based system in which farmers are paid for the results they produce. This differs from the input-orientated system of an action-based approach, which focuses on the actions performed. In Ireland, the results-based approach was first implemented through locally-led agri-environment schemes, which have been used to address local problems with context-appropriate solutions. These schemes, such as The BRIDE project in the River Bride catchment and The Burren LIFE Programme in Co. Clare does not conform to the broad-stroke approach of previous nationwide schemes and has been found to be extremely effective in enhancing farmland biodiversity.


The influence of locally-led schemes, coupled with a push from the EU towards results-based agri-environment schemes to provide greater cost-effectiveness, has resulted in the creation of Ireland’s first nationwide results-based agri-environment scheme, aptly named Results-Based Environment-Agri Pilot Project (REAP). REAP will trial the use of a results-based payment in achieving biodiversity outcomes and will directly influence the implementation of this system on a larger scale in the Irish Rural Development Plan 2023. Will results-based schemes prove to be the silver bullet in solving Ireland’s biodiversity loss?

Questioning results-based schemes


Before tearing up the current script and implementing a full-scale results-based payment scheme, the advantages and disadvantages of this system must be understood.
There are advantages of results-based schemes that address some of the problems associated with action-based schemes. A results-based scheme makes a clear link between biodiversity outcomes and payments. Furthermore, it does not specify the action in which this result must be obtained, allowing farmers to integrate the production of the desired outcome into their existing management practices. This freedom facilitates adaptability and allows farmers to draw on their existing wealth of local knowledge and skill, which is essential in integrating the importance of biodiversity into long-term farming practices. A results-based system is cost-effective, as it incentivizes farmers to select only the biodiversity outcomes on the land in which it can be achieved and to strive for improvement year on year.


Although results-based schemes are mostly depicted in a positive light, there are disadvantages that should be made clear. Result-based schemes are limited to circumstances in which the relationship between agricultural practice and biodiversity outcome is established and can be represented by indicators. The freedom of farmers to innovate in these schemes is greatly influenced by advisory support, without which farmers may not have the ability to achieve the desired outcomes. It is important to note that a results-based approach carries a financial risk to farmers, as the desired outcomes can be influenced by factors outside of the control of farmers. In addition, results-based payment schemes carry a high initial cost, requiring an adaption of the management system, advisory support, training, and repeated monitoring of results.

Future of payment schemes


A result-based payment approach cannot be perceived as a silver bullet given its drawbacks. However, the business-as-usual approach is not an option. Instead, a results-based approach would represent a positive step in restoring Irish farmland biodiversity, which is achievable in previous locally-led results-based schemes. To mitigate the financial risk to participants, a hybrid results-based system that incorporates action payments could be implemented. The targeted actions within a hybrid approach can complement the results-based payments. The key to success with any payment scheme, results-based or otherwise, is farmer participation. These schemes are not obligatory for farmers, and so the unwillingness of farmers to properly engage will cause the programme to fail. Creating a results-based agri-environment scheme that works for farmers as well as biodiversity will be the key to success.

Posted on

Wondering if I’d get there quicker if I was a man – 5 tips to help the equality fight for your female colleagues

It’s been just over two weeks since International Women’s Day (IWD) 2022, and in truth I feel a little bit deflated. As wonderful as it was to see the work of so many incredible females being celebrated, I can’t help but agree with Greta. 

As I scrolled through Twitter I was greeted with the usual performative ‘Look at us supporting women’ posts. Although seemingly inspiring, in reality these were nothing more than a picture of a female employee and a few hashtags. Ok great so you have a female in the team, but what are you doing to support them? To provide them with the same opportunities as their male counterparts? To ensure they are treated and paid fairly? It turns out mostly not a lot, with many organisations (several universities included) failing to put their money where their mouth is. I came across a great page (@PayGapAPP) calling out gender pay disparities in response to IWD posts from organisations claiming to champion women. It would have been quite amusing to see them scramble to delete and amend their posts after being called out if it wasn’t so heart-breaking. 

Something else I was struck by, but sadly not surprised at, was how the majority of posts I came across were from women. Yes, it’s International Women’s Day, but in my experience what women don’t need is more support from each other (something that is usually found in bucket loads). What we actually need is for our male friends and colleagues to use their voices to support us too. Our fight for equality should not rest on our shoulders alone, and quite frankly the problem isn’t our fault, so why should we be the ones constantly trying to fix it? 

Misogyny is everywhere, always. It lurks in academic portraits hung on walls where women often cease to exist. It lingers in emails addressed ‘Hi guys’ or ‘Dear Sirs’. It strikes when equipment is taken out of a woman’s hand because ‘she needs help’. It stings with questions asked about childcare that aren’t also asked to male colleagues. The list goes on…and on. And if you don’t see it, you are part of the problem.

Did this really happen?!. 2018. Did this really happen?!. [ONLINE] Available at: https://didthisreallyhappen.net/. [Accessed 25.03.2022].

With risk of falling into an even deeper pit of despair, I want to direct this blog into something more positive. What can we do (all genders) to chip away and change these behaviours in both everyday life and an academic setting? 

Here’s 5 things I think if we all made a little effort to do, we would see a huge difference. 

1.         Check yourself – Do you notice or consider the microaggressions women face on a daily basis? 

Microaggression is defined as indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group. In the case of women, this can range from unsolicited pet names and invasion of personal space to female colleagues having their skills underestimated because they don’t fit the stereotype in a male dominated career. 

There’s a link to a great article here with some more examples. Have a flick through and make yourself familiar. Some of them you might have noticed before, and others might be new to you. By putting these on your radar, hopefully you will be more likely to notice them in real life scenarios. I see them on a very regular basis, so it shouldn’t take you long. 

2.              Call it out – Do you speak up when you see others treated differently because of their gender?

I read something the other day which really made me sit back and question myself, “just because someone is nice to you, doesn’t mean they are nice to everyone”. We can all be guilty of turning a blind eye to behaviours that don’t affect us, but it is precisely then when we should use our privilege to call out the differences in treatment between colleagues. I have definitely been guilty of this in the past. Although I’m sure being a woman and not having the confidence to question this in fear of being labelled ‘one of those’ has influenced this in part (internalised misogyny strikes again), it’s not an excuse and I need to do better. And likely, so do you.  

3.              Be inclusive – Think about how you address your peers. What kind of language do you use? Are you unknowingly dismissing your female colleagues? 

I recently received an email from my solicitor that read: Dear Grace, immediately followed by Dear Sirs. When I responded politely but firmly that as my name hinted, I was a female, and that a more inclusive approach to addressing clients should be used, I was met with the response “It was a generic email and no offence was caused”. Yes, you read that right. As you can imagine, I didn’t take too kindly to this and was quick to reply, that offence was caused, and whether or not it was a generic email, my point still stood. Whatever the purpose of the correspondence, why are we still excluding other genders on something so fundamental as addressing another human being?

Perhaps this is an extreme example (it’s not, I’ve been addressed as Dear Sirs more times than you can shake a stick at), but what about ‘hey guys’? I used to say this all the time, and it wasn’t until a friend of mine questioned me that I thought anything more of it. It may seem trivial but imagine if everyone went round addressing mixed gendered groups as ‘hey girls’, you’d probably think that’s a bit odd, so why aren’t the same questions asked when it’s the other way around?

4.              Change your behaviour – Ask yourself, if this was a man, would I behave the same? 

The belief that women are weak and need protecting is known as ‘Benevolent Sexism’. 

If you saw a man carrying something, e.g. field equipment, and they didn’t look uncomfortable or like they genuinely needed help, would you offer it? And if you did, but they declined, would you still insist? I’m not saying never ask a woman if she needs help again, just think about your motives in doing so first. 

The same goes for the reverse. For example, giving validation to a female colleague for completing a task and not giving the same validation to a male colleague in the same position. This goes back to underestimating women, and being surprised when they succeed.

5. Show up – You don’t have to be perfect; you just need to try. 

This is arguably the most important of my tips and the main take home point. 

Misogyny is so deeply ingrained in society it’s impossible to change all of these things overnight. But by constantly questioning both your own and other’s behaviours and by making mistakes and learning, together we can start to see real change. 

.

I want to highlight that these are my own thoughts and based on my own personal experiences. This is a nuanced subject, and the effects of misogyny are not felt equally between different ethnicities, sexualities, and gender identities. I of course cannot speak for everyone one who identifies as a woman and everyone is different, so bear that in mind. However, if you want to chat or have any questions, please feel free to get in touch.

.

This blog was written by Grace McNicholas, one of our EcoEvo Blog Editors.

Posted on

2022 Photo Competition Showcase

It’s the moment you’ve all been waiting for…the results of our annual photo competition!

We’d like to start by saying a huge thank you to each and every one of you who submitted your photos. It’s been so wonderful to see such diversity between entries and to get a sneak peek into both your field work and general time you’ve spent in nature. I’m sure all our readers will agree with us how fantastic each photo is, but alas, there can only be one new photo banner!

You are all winners in our eyes but after struggling to narrow it down to our top 5, we couldn’t possibly decide on the winner alone…*Google poll enters the chat*. We had brilliant engagement during the voting process, so thank you to all of you who participated and voted for your favourite. Our winning photo took over 50% of the vote share, with the rest split evenly.

Before revealing our finalists and winner (no scrolling to the bottom yet please), join us while we take you through all of our 2022 entries:

The Entries

Green Shieldbug by Mairéad O’Donnell

This photo of a Green Shieldbug walking along a blade of grass was taken by Mairéad while surveying biodiversity in Cahir, Co. Tipperary. Mairéad was struck by the water droplet resting on its back.

Mairéad is a PhD student in the Department of Botany. Her Twitter handle is @MaireadODonn

Sugar Kelp and more! by Jean Williams

A mix of kelp species was found during a foraging tour/field trip on Glassillaun beach in Renvyle, Connemara, Co. Galway in August 2020. In the bottom left of the image is Sugar Kelp (Saccharina latissima), whilst the predominant species in the image is beautiful example of the curled stipe base and holdfast of Furbellows (Saccorhiza polyschides).

Jean is a PhD student in the Dept. of Botany, working with Marcus Collier examining if wild edibles can transition towards a more sustainable food system.

Aminita Muscaria or Fly Agaric by Jean Williams

The Aminita Muscaria or Fly Agaric was found on a foraging tour/field trip in Devil’s Glen Wood in October 2021.

Imagine the noise! by Katrin Schertenleib

Can you spot the fat, fluffy chicks among their parents in this breeding colony of Northern Gannets (Morus bassana) on Great Saltee?

Katrin is a PhD student in Zoology, working in Nessa O’Connor’s lab and her Twitter handle is @KatMarSci

Keep your head down by Mat Cobain

Photo taken at Glendalough in January 2022.

Mat is a postdoc in Zoology and his Twitter handle is @CobainMat

Touch of innocence by Elena Zioga

This picture was taken in North Greece and shows a hoverfly on the stamens of a white water lily. Water lily flowers have a rather strange mechanism to prevent self-fertilisation. They open slightly on the first day as females, forming a cup shape filled with stigma exudates. Insects may enter the flower and often fall into the exudates, which wash off pollen carried from other flowers onto the stigma, and fertilise the flower. On the second and third days the flowers fully open as males and no exudates are produced. Insects that land on the flowers on these days get covered with pollen and transport it to flowers that are just opening, hence receptive to pollination. 

Elena is a PhD student in the Botany department and her Twitter handle is @ZioElena

The third wheel by Elena Zioga

How many insects do you see in this picture taken in Northwest Greece? Some male solitary bee species would probably see more than one. To their eyes, the two orchid flowers are potential female partners! Not only because they look like female solitary bees in shape, colour and appearance, but also because these flowers secrete intense chemical pheromones highly attractive for the males. If a male solitary bee was passing by, it would probably try to mate with those orchid flowers. The grasshopper would become a witness to the miracle of pollination, but the male bee would leave rather disappointed afterwards…

The Bee Orchid by Marine Valmier

Bee Orchids (Ophrys apifera) are a real treat for the eyes, native but fairly hard to find in Ireland. They owe their name to their pollination strategy called “pseudocopulation” as they mimic both the scent and appearance of females of a select few species of solitary bee, to attract their males (but can also self-pollinate).

Marine is a PhD student in the Botany department and her Twitter handle is @MValmier

The Bee Orchid by Marine Valmier

The Bog Way is a wet one, as water is the blood that flows in every peatland veins. It is different shades of blue, and loads of green, and some darker secrets. The Bog Way is also a road of light, bringing some hope in the fight against climate change with the rehabilitation and restoration of damaged peatland.

Common blue butterfly by Bea Jackson

The photo is of a common blue butterfly in my parent’s garden.

Bea Jackson is a Research Masters student in Jennifer McElwain’s group and is studying Devonian plant fossils.

A Xylocopa violacea resting on a maple tree branch by Irene Bottero

A Xylocopa violacea resting on a maple tree branch. This bee might look scary because of its huge body size – one of the largest European bees – and because of its intense buzzing hum, but it’s a friendly giant.  I spotted this large carpenter bee while I was working from home in Italy during the pandemic.

Irene is a PhD student in Botany working on pollinators under the Poshbee EU project.

A honey bee looking for some food fell into a trap… by Irene Bottero

A honey bee looking for some food fell into a trap…and she became the meal! Can you spot the trap? When I first saw the bee I thought something looked rather strange and it took some time to realise what was happening. The clever…and very sneaky camouflage of a white spider ambushed the hungry bee, just as she lowered her guard. 

The Finalists

Lockdown Visitor by Floriane O’Keeffe 

A honeybee perches on a fuschia plant

Floriane is a PhD student in Zoology, working in The Parasitology Lab and her Twitter handle is @florianeeok

Making a Mockery by Floriane O’Keeffe 

A Galapagos mockingbird mid call

Ichneumon Wasp on a Holly bush by Mairéad O’Donnell

This photo was taken by Mairéad while surveying biodiversity in Cahir, Co. Tipperary. This is an Ichneumon Wasp on a Holly bush. Mairéad noticed the wasp following her and hiding behind the bush while she was carrying out a survey.

Mairéad O’Donnell is a PhD student in Botany and her Twitter handle is @MaireadODonn

Eggs, Eggs, Eggs by Jason Keegan

A typical view down the microscope as part of my search for Toxocara spp. eggs in the public parks of Dublin City. No Toxocara eggs to be seen in this picture but plenty of other nematode, fungus and plant eggs to behold, all concentrated from just 50 grams of soil. Now when I go for a walk in the park I can’t help but think of how the soil under my feet is teeming with all sorts of eggs! 

Jason is a postdoctoral research fellow in Zoology, working in The Holland Lab.

The WINNER!

Look what I’ve brought! by Katrin Schertenleib

Two adult Puffins (Fratercula arctic) at Great Saltee. The left one stopped for a quick rest next to the other, before it hurried into one of the burrows to feed its Puffling. Puffins can hold multiple fish between their tongue and upper mandible while continuing to catch more. The world record is said to be 80 (small larval fish). Larger gulls like this and often try to steal the catch, so the successful hunters stay very alert.

Katrin is a PhD student in Zoology, working in Nessa O’Connor’s lab and her Twitter handle is @KatMarSci

Thank you to all who participated and congratulations to our deserving winner! The EcoEvo blog banner will be updated to Katrin’s beautiful image shortly.

Posted on

Tramps in Transition: Wallacea’s monarch flycatchers and their evolutionary natural experiment

Pale-blue Monarch on the left and Island Monarch on the right

A warm welcome back to all our readers! The new year is now well and truly upon us and we hope you’ve all had a safe and energised return to work. This blog is written by Fionn Ó Marcaigh, summarising his new paper. Congratulations Fionn and we hope our readers enjoy learning about your research as much as we have! So without further ado…

Science is about making observations from the natural world, drawing up hypotheses to explain the patterns you’ve observed, and then testing these hypotheses by experimentation. We tend to imagine scientists in white coats doing experiments in the lab, but our understanding of evolution also owes a lot to work done in “natural laboratories” like islands and other isolated habitats, where evolution has taken place under different conditions. Our new paper, just published Open Access by the International Biogeography Society in their journal Frontiers of Biogeography, has used an important natural laboratory in Southeast Asia to test a classic hypothesis based on a bird called the Island Monarch (Monarcha cinerascens). We’ve made observations that contradict parts of the hypothesis and discovered a possible new species in the process!

Our natural laboratory was a collection of islands around a region known as Wallacea in central Indonesia (see map below). Named after Alfred Russel Wallace, this is where he co-discovered evolution by natural selection while travelling around islands of all shapes and sizes, with the waters around them being so wide and deep that most species have trouble crossing them. Some organisms are better at crossing these barriers than others, with the Island Monarch thought to be particularly adept. As its name suggests, the Island Monarch is one of the kings of small islands. It can be found all the way from the islands off Sulawesi in Wallacea, to the farthest reaches of the Melanesian islands east of Papua New Guinea, but is missing from large islands like Sulawesi and New Guinea themselves.

Continue reading “Tramps in Transition: Wallacea’s monarch flycatchers and their evolutionary natural experiment”
Posted on

New Editors of EcoEvo blog 2021/22!

As 2022 rolls around quicker than any of us could have ever imagined, it’s time to say farewell to our current editors – Erika Soldi and Sam Preston – and introduce our new editing trio.  

Many thanks to Erika and Sam for their wonderful contribution to the EcoEvo blog, bringing us all some much needed light in a challenging year. Highlights include advice on how to make your lab greener, the connection between nature and wellbeing, and of course your research (Fungi, Birds , Crabs and so much more!). We wish Erika and Sam the very best for their continued research and hopefully this won’t be the last our readers hear from them! 

Goodbyes are always hard, but this year’s is even more so in light of the tragic loss of Dr Aoibheann Gaughran. Before introducing ourselves, we would like to take a minute to extend our condolences to Aoibheann’s loved ones and pay tribute to our wonderful friend and colleague. Below is a beautiful photo of a Brown Hawker Dragonfly taken by Aoibheann and submitted for last year’s photo competition. May it remind us of her and her love for nature. 

We would now like to introduce you to your new editors… Lucy Harding, Grace McNicholas and Richa Marwaha. Editing is a new venture for each of us, so go easy! Below is a short intro about us and our research. If you have any questions about our work please feel free to get in touch. We look forward to bringing you new content in 2022 and learning from our fantastic contributors. 

Lucy Harding

Hi everyone, my name is Lucy and my pronouns are she/her. I am a 3rd year PhD student in the Dept. of Zoology. My background is in environmental science and marine conservation. Before my PhD, I was working in the Philippines and Fiji teaching children and international volunteers the importance of protecting our oceans. But my heart was always in my hometown, so I swapped tropical life for rainy ol’ Dublin and I now study the thermal physiology and ecology of marine fish, with a focus on warm blooded sharks, under the supervision of Nicholas Payne.

I am a novice when it comes to blogs so I’m very excited to learn a lot over the next year and to hear all of your exciting stories! 

Grace McNicholas

Hi all, I’m Grace (she/her), nice to meet you! I recently moved to the Emerald Isle from the UK to start my PhD in the Payne Lab. If you get to know me you’ll soon realise I have a tendency to complicate things for myself, so of course my PhD is no exception and I am actually based in Westport, Mayo not Dublin. The reason being, I work closely with the Marine Institute in their nearby facility, researching the Ecology of Irish Tuna, including their space use and post-release behaviour. Probably a good thing though, as I’m not much of a city girl and since graduating from my MSc I’ve spent most of my adult life running away to remote places – be it the Australian outback or a tiny Bahamian Island! 

As with Lucy, blog editing is completely alien to me but I’m looking forward to giving it a go and learning something new!

Richa Marwaha

Hi all, I am Richa working as a post-doc researcher under the supervision of Dr Matthew Saunders in the Botany Department. My project is to investigate the C/GHG dynamics of peatlands using Earth Observation techniques.

My background is in remote sensing and GIS. I moved from India to Ireland for PhD 5 years ago. I recently finished my PhD from Teagasc, Ashtown and UCC. My research was focused on grass growth rate estimation using machine learning and remote sensing.

Outside of work, I enjoy painting, baking and travelling. I am a part of this blog to improve my writing skills and venture into the world of science communication. Looking forward to this new experience and your ideas and research!

Updates:

The annual EcoEvo photo competition is back! For those of you who have been around for a while hopefully you are familiar with the competition, but if not, it’s a chance for our lovely readers to submit and vote on our updated EcoEvo blog photo banner. Keep an eye out for more details in our January post, and in the meantime don’t forget to get out and about in nature this festive season to capture some wintery shots!

We’d also like to take a moment to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and we hope you get to spend time with your loved ones after a challenging few years. Christmas can also be a difficult time for lots of us, so please reach out and ask for support if you feel alone. 

Nollaig Shona – and we look forward to 2022 and sharing plenty of new blogs with you!

Posted on

Myodes glareolus, a model system for studying pathogens during a biological invasion

The Invasive Bank Vole (Myodes glareolus): A Model System for Studying Parasites and Ecoimmunology during a Biological Invasion, McManus et al. Animals 2021. Read it here.

Emerging infectious diseases, biological invasions & rodents

Over the past century, there has been an increase in Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs), leading to outbreaks in diseases of zoonotic origin, such as SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, Lassa, Zika, Ebola, HIV, and not to forget the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The increase in these EID events have been linked to the increasing rate of environmental change, including habitat destruction and biological invasions.

While EIDs are considered a major risk to human populations, they can also be detrimental to indigenous wildlife. For example, it has been suggested that the introduced grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), has resulted in the transfer of squirrelpox (Parapoxvirus) to the indigenous red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris). Consequently, the introduction of non-native invaders can affect native species through more cryptic means than direct competition, by altering the pathogen communities present in the native species. This can manifest through a number of mechanisms, the most obvious of which is spillover. Spillover occurs when a non-native parasite co-invades with the non-native host species, spreading to the immunologically naïve native (as in the case of the red and grey squirrels). Conversely, a less obvious mechanism by which introduced species affect pathogen communities is spillback. Spillback occurs when the non-native host has an increased competency for a native parasite resulting in an amplification effect: the native parasite multiplies in the introduced species, but the native host suffers more from the increased number of parasites in its environment. Of course, benign impacts on native species’ relationships with pathogens are also possible. The non-native host can also have a lower competency for a native parasite, thus diluting the parasite burden of the native species. (Dunn and Hatcher explain these mechanisms in much more detail here, if you are curious to know more.)

Wild rodents have offered key insights into disease ecology. For example, Laakkonen et al. demonstrated that Eimeria infections in vole populations show seasonal cycles peaking in autumn, while similar studies on Puumala orthohantavirus have shown the virus to cycle in bank vole populations with peak infection occurring in spring. Their worldwide distribution and ability to spread with human activity make rodents excellent models for understanding disease ecology.

M. glareolus as a model system in Ireland

Bank Vole carrying nest material. Image Credit: Andreas Eichler, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

In Ireland, the bank vole presents a unique opportunity as a model system. It has a verifiable introduction point in Foynes, Co. Limerick, has been shown to spread by about 2.5 km per year, and has no current eradication plan. Previous studies by Loxton et al. (2016; 2017) and Stuart et al. have studied the parasite species present in the bank vole and wood mouse in Ireland, with the bank vole harbouring fewer parasite species, resulting in “enemy release” (i.e. the introduced bank vole is relatively free of parasitic burden compared to native competitors).

Stuart et al. explicitly demonstrated that the bank vole exhibits enemy release within Ireland, with bank voles at the expansion front were less parasitised compared to their conspecifics in core populations. The bank vole has also caused a dilution effect for the native wood mouse, with the wood mouse showing lower parasite species abundance at the invasion core, compared to populations at the expansion front and in uninvaded sites. Despite this, the wood mouse also showed increased abundances of the nematode worms Syphacia stroma and S. lobata, suggesting while parasite density may be lower overall, some parasite species are taking advantage of this to increase in their native host population.

The bank vole currently occupies about 40% of the island and continues to expand its range. Accompanied by the presence of baseline knowledge and data, as a model system, the bank vole invasion provides the opportunity to further investigate how parasite communities change as the bank vole becomes more established. The presence of uninvaded sites in the Stuart et al. study provides the opportunity to investigate the early changes that occur when the invader first enters the ecosystem.

The addition of a second invader, the greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula), has also presented another avenue to explore, (as shown by Montgomery, Lundy and Reid), it has a positive synergistic effect on bank vole numbers, while causing a negative effect on the wood mouse numbers and local perturbation of the native pygmy shrew (Sorex minutus).

As demonstrated by international studies, wild rodents, due to their ecology and biology, prove to be good model systems for studying disease in wildlife. Likewise, longitudinal studies on the bank vole invasion have the potential to offer key insights into studying disease and ecoimmunology during a biological invasion, with the potential to give a key insight to the changes in pathogen dynamics during the early stages of the invasion.

Ongoing work utilising this model system.

While the paper outlines the need for continuing research into the bank vole model, this has already begun at Munster Technological University with my supervisor Dr. Peter Stuart. Fieldwork has been completed for the spring and autumn seasons with gut dissections well underway to detect the parasites present. Alongside this, our partners in the BioRodDis group are analysing samples we have sent to detect various bacteria and viruses present in Irish rodents, along with samples from around Europe, helping to make a large database of the rodent pathogens present.

Posted on

Biodiversity in brownfields

Moving from Dublin City to rural Ireland as a child was a bit of a shock to my system. Up to that moment I had grown up surrounded by pavement and tall dull buildings as far as the eye could see, however, now I lived in a house surrounded by fields upon fields of cattle and crops. I thought I lived in an area surrounded by nature, but it wasn’t until I got older that I realised the endless stretches of fields around me all contained the same few species.

Credit cover picture: Dissonancefalling is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

As a child, I gave little thought to this homogeneity. The one thing around me that did catch my attention was the large deserted building site at the back of my house. Like many, we moved into a brand new housing estate during the Celtic Tiger, only for the inevitable bust that occurred shortly after we moved in to halt the construction on the rest of the estate. As children, we were always warned to stay away from the empty site. Filled with abandoned equipment and precarious structures, the place was a death trap. For years, despite the odd bonfire on Halloween, the site remained virtually untouched. Forever to be labelled an eyesore. A waste of land.

That was until I went to university to study Zoology and took a module in Restoration Ecology. During this time, I learned that Mother Nature may not have been as idle over the many years that construction companies have been. The term brownfield site came up on my radar and I realised that maybe that eyesore at the back of my estate might hold more value than I previously believed.

On-site images of the Brownfield site. Credit: Aoife Cahill

What are brownfield sites?

Brownfield sites have been defined as “land that was previously developed for housing or industry but has since been abandoned and recolonised by different ecological assemblages” [1]. While these sites are typically described as “dangerous” or “eyesores” and can have negative connotations to them, research has shown that these brownfields are highly important for biodiversity as they are capable of harbouring rich and sophisticated ecosystems capable of supporting rare and threatened species.

While governments are starting to acknowledge the importance of brownfields and the role they play in protecting biodiversity, such as the UK government adding some brownfield sites to its list of priority sites listed in its Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act), many of these sites still face threats of development [2].

There are many types of brownfield sites, with the two most important broad categories being described as wetland or dry ground. Wetland brownfields are important as they provide refuge for waterbirds, whose natural habitat availability has been shrinking. Dry ground sites, are typically well-drained, poor in nutrients and sometimes contaminated and have been described by conservationists as highly important for providing havens for rare or endangered species [3].

Why are brownfields important for rural Ireland?

The expansion and intensification of agricultural practices have been closely linked to the depletion of biodiversity. It has been suggested that as much as 23% of species diversity once associated with European farmland has been lost during the period 1970 and 2000 [4]. It has become clear that biodiversity plays a fundamental role in sustainable agricultural systems. It has also been determined that increasing habitat heterogeneity in the rural landscape would play an important role in reversing the decline in farmland bird species. So if it has been agreed that more diverse landscapes in rural Ireland would benefit biodiversity and in turn would have a positive impact on agriculture, perhaps it would be beneficial to not only focus on increasing biodiversity on agricultural land but also factor in the importance of brownfield sites that have become widespread across Ireland since the 2010s when a surge in ghost estates, and in turn abandoned building sites, was seen in rural areas.

Of course, it’s important to stress the importance of protecting and promoting biodiversity on agricultural land, but maybe we shouldn’t ignore the potential biodiversity goldmines that we have potentially been casting scornful looks at for the past decade.

The brownfield site next door

At the beginning of the summer, I contacted Dr Marcus Collier and the Connecting Nature project about summer research opportunities and we got on the topic of the abandoned building site in my estate. We concluded that I had the opportunity to conduct research right on my doorstep. Once we worked through the logistics of the site location we came up with a plan. The plan for the research was to create a habitat map of the site, conduct botanical, invertebrate pollinator and bird surveys, and compare this to similar surveys conducted in a neighbouring agricultural field. This research aimed to bring attention to brownfield sites and to show that they can play an important role in conjunction with sustainable agricultural practices to increase the heterogeneity of the Irish rural landscape to protect and promote biodiversity.

ArcMap 10.7.1 was used to create the habitat map and habitats were classified according to Fossitt (2000) – A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Once the map was completed, I decided that to get a complete picture of the brownfield site and the potential species it was home to, botanical surveys of multiple habitat types were required. Botanical surveys of grassland (GS2), hedgerows (WL1) and recolonising bare ground (ED3) were conducted. Transect sampling methods were used to record invertebrate and bird species. The same methods were used to study an improved agricultural grassland (GA1) directly beside the brownfield.

Habitat map of the site. Credit: Aoife Cahill

So on a few sunny days in June 2021, I went out into the field with a homemade quadrat, a camera, and a pen and paper to conduct this research.

What was found?

The results of the botanical surveys for each habitat type within the site were interesting because there was minimal overlapping in species types recorded in each habitat.      

Each habitat type had a distinct set of botanical species that weren’t found in the others. The recolonising bare ground was recorded to have the highest number of plant species. A survey of a neighbouring agricultural site showed very little diversity in plant species, with perennial ryegrass dominating the majority of the site. Several grass species were recorded in the brownfield site, including Yorkshire fog (H. lanatus) and sweet grass (H. odorata).

Number of plant species found at each habitat type. Credit: Aoife Cahill

The invertebrate pollinator survey also indicated the high biodiversity of the site, in which a range of bees, butterflies, and moths was recorded. Bees were the highest recorded species including the common carder (B. pascuorum), buff-tailed bumblebee (B. terrestris), and garden bumblebee (B. hortorum). Common blue (P. icarus), large white (P. brassicae), and small tortoiseshell (A. urticae) were the butterfly species identified. One micromoth species, Ancylis badiana, was also recorded. The bird species that were identified included Rooks, Wood pigeons, Starlings, Robins, and Magpies. 

Common carder bee (B. pascuorum) (on the left) and common blue butterfly (P. icarus) (on the right) found on-site. Credit: Aoife Cahill

What does it mean?

This field research is important because it could increase community awareness of how important the areas in towns and villages that are deemed to be “eyesores” could unknowingly be. It’s also important because it could be an indicator that brownfield sites could benefit the goal to increase biodiversity in the rural landscape by acting as a mosaic of different habitat types within one site located between large areas of agricultural land. While the main goal would remain to focus on protecting and promoting biodiversity on agricultural land as it makes up the majority of land use in Ireland (roughly 70%), brownfield sites could supplement the actions undertaken. Brownfield sites could benefit rare and endangered species by acting as a refuge when their natural habitats are becoming fewer and further between.

I believe that the potential benefit that brownfield sites could have to protect and promote biodiversity throughout Ireland should be given real consideration. While the land type could be deemed unorthodox, we live in a world that is changing every day and we must keep creating new ways and be open-minded to adapting to this change.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11355-011-0186-8
  2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/pdfs/ukpga_20060016_en.pdf
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264926/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837716302125
Posted on

From a Frozen Zoo Then Back to Life: A Clone’s Story

The media love to brand cloning as an apocalyptic threat that involves mad scientists, evil doppelgängers, and mutated monsters like Frankenstein. Thanks to such misconceptions, cloning discussions highly focus on the idea of human clones and what this means for our individual identity. However, much like the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, life is more than mankind. This human self-entitlement draws away from the fact that cloning can be a tool used to right our wrongs, as cloning has the potential to save species that we have endangered or even resurrect species that we have driven to extinction. But before Jurassic Park and Ice Age fans get too excited, I’m here to convince you that we should focus our cloning resources on reverting species decline rather than de-extinction. Read on with an open mind and look past the assumptions that the media have distilled in how we think and understand the science of cloning.

Credit cover picture: USFWS Mountain Prairie is licensed under CC BY 2.0

To demonstrate how cloning can successfully save a dying species, I am going to take you on a journey as we explore the life, death and rebirth of a clone named Elizabeth Ann. Elizabeth Ann is a black-footed ferret whose species is native to the United States. In the 1970s, this species was thought to be extinct after farmers and ranchers destroyed the main food source of black-footed ferrets, the prairie dogs.

However, a ranch dog named Shep surprised the world when he uncovered a remaining population in 1981. These surviving black-footed ferrets were monitored intensely and the population seemed to be thriving, up until they were nearly wiped out by canine distemper and sylvatic plague. The very last 18 black-footed ferrets were rounded up and taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service before it was too late.
Of the remaining 18 black-footed ferrets, only 7 were successful in breeding and passing their genes onto offspring. As a result, all newborns arose from the same 7 founders, meaning all black-footed ferrets alive today are related. This incestuous existence creates a population with little genetic diversity which can wreak all sorts of havoc on the success and maintenance of a population. You see, differences and variations in genes are what enable a species to fight off diseases and better adapt to their surroundings. Without this diversity, a species is less likely to survive on this ever-changing Earth.

The black-footed ferret cloning process began when forward-thinking conservationists at the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish suggested that the cells of a female black-footed ferret, named Willa, be sent to the Frozen Zoo within the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance (SDZWA) when she died in 1988, as Willa had a particularly diverse genome. These cells became one of the 1,100 cryopreserved (frozen) cells of rare, endangered, and even long-dead species who are silently waiting for technology to enable their return. 30 years later, Willa’s frozen cells were used to make Elizabeth Ann, along with the collaborative help from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ViaGen Pets & Equine, Revive & Restore and the SDZWA.

The cloning process involved taking eggs from sedated domestic ferrets (a related species) and replacing the nucleus and genetic material of the eggs with the contents of Willa’s cells (picturing a yolk transplant between a chicken and a duck egg helps me make sense of it). The resulting embryos were implanted into a surrogate domestic ferret and, lo and behold one embryo took and a black-footed ferret foetus was conceived.
On the 10th of December 2020, Elizabeth Ann was born via C-section with tests on her 65th day revealing that she is, in fact, of the black-footed ferret species and a clone of the pre-existing Willa. The arrival of Elizabeth Ann brings new hope for the species as a broadening of the gene pool may help black-footed ferrets reproduce more easily and become more resilient to disease and environmental stressors. Therefore, cloning can aid in overcoming the genetic limitations that are disrupting the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferrets. If Elizabeth Ann successfully breeds and provides greater genetic diversity, this will legitimise cloning as a reproductive technology for the conservation management of black-footed ferrets and other endangered species.

Although cloning can be a successful way of saving living species from dying out, cloning specialists at Revive & Restore continue to work towards resurrecting extinct species such as the passenger pigeon and the woolly mammoth. But take note, bringing an extinct species back to life is very expensive, much more complicated, and highly controversial. There’s no knowing if an extinct species could even survive in the climate we have created today. So, let’s stick to what we know can work and clone to save our existing species first.

What do you think?

Keep up-to-date with Elizabeth Ann’s journey via the black-footed ferret conservation project Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FerretCenter

References:
1. Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture: An analysis of German documentaries reveals beliefs and prejudices that are common elsewhere. EMBO reports, 7: 241-245
2. Ryder, O.A. and Benirschke, K. (1997). The potential use of “cloning” in the conservation effort. Zoo Biology: Published in affiliation with the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, 16: 295-300.


Based on the ideas discussed in: Shapiro, B. (2017). Pathways to de-extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?. Functional Ecology, 31: 996-100.