As part of an ongoing census of the birds of Trinity College, we surveyed their diversity just outside our door.
Authors
Trinity College Zoology Students
Photo Credit
Trinity College Zoology Students
The VIP Tweetment
We need Tarzan to fill the gaps!
Nature News published a new post about our origins. It’s promoting Stevens et al’s 2013 paper that published the description from two new granddads/grandmas in our already complicated family tree. These guys, Nsungwepithecus and Rukwapithecus (it’s not that hard to pronounce, try it) are considered by Stevens and his team as the oldest crown Catarrhines – [Google translate palaeo-primatish to English: “as closely related as the ancestors of you and your cousin the proboscis monkey (we all knew there were some facial similarities!)”]. Technically speaking, these fossil discoveries pushed the origin of modern Catarrhines back from 20 to 25 million years ago, a date which is closer to molecular results (25-30 mya). Astonishing eh? Well it is for me but there’s another reason why I wanted to talk about this paper: gaps.
As many people might know, the fossil record contains some serious lacunas; thick layers of rock containing either very few or no fossils at all. One example mentioned in this paper is the scarcity of fossils from the Oligocene period; very few bones for palaeontologists to gnaw… The Oligocene was, however, a period of massive changes, in climate and all that stuff but also the time when placental mammals evolved from their primitive to modern forms. So the lack of fossils from this time is always frustrating when you want to understand macro-evolutionary patterns. But why have we found so few Oligocene fossils until now? Of the many explanations Stevens et al. suggest that “Possible reasons […] include limited deposits of appropriate age, particularly […] below the equator, complicated by densely vegetated topography in more tropical environments”. And that’s why I find this article so exciting! Traditionally, fossil primates were excavated in deserts or northern latitudes, which is typically where they are fairly rare nowadays! Therefore, I’m happy to see that there is a true effort being made to look for fossils in biodiversity hotspots such as Tarzan’s neighborhood (or the Tanzanian Rukwa Rift Valley in this paper) where these new primates were discovered.
I think one of the most important things to come from this paper is that it’s proof of a real effort to look for the fossils in the true biodiversity hotspots which, I’m sure will lead to far better comprehension of modern mammalian history. These new primates came from Africa but people are also working in Peruvian jungle and interesting new discoveries are not limited to just primates…
Author
Thomas Guillerme: guillert@tcd.ie
Photo credit
wikimedia commons
Sentenced to death: how not to communicate science
I like to think the purpose of language (poetry excluded) is to convey information. Doing so in science is complicated somewhat by the vocabulary that every field accumulates. But, from my experience, most of this jargon takes the form of nouns and these are easy to explain when necessary. Take the word ‘phylogenetics’ as an example. On first inspection it’s a polysyllabic monster but as a noun it’s easy to define as “the systematic study of organism relationships based on evolutionary similarities and differences.” Simple. And over time this word slots into our vocabulary so we no longer need a definition every time.
The real problems in the language of science communication lurk elsewhere. Neuroscientists declare the self is an illusion but there is always going to be a subject doing science no matter how objective we want it to be. And it is that subject who should do the explaining of his or her work. The complete aversion of scientists to personal pronouns is a disaster for clarity and renders many papers unreadable. There are instances when the passive voice is more suitable but it’s not a case of ‘I showed’ for the humanities and ‘it was shown’ for science.
Lewis Spurgin lists myriad forms of bugbears in communicating science in one of his blog posts. Pretentious writing and clichés are both listed! As he says, so much light has been shed on matters in science that we’ve all gone blind. So rather than eschewing obfuscation and espousing elucidation try to keep it simple stupid (KISS). Despite Will Self’s eloquent defence of obscure words, in science communication, clarity should be our highest priority.
And finally we come to the “funny title: actual title” format (see this blog post). Spurgin reckons scientists prone to this are in need of a colonic irrigation. And with good cause, for having a colon in your title reduces the number of cites you receive.
Author
Adam Kane: kanead@tcd.ie
Photo credit
wikimedia commons
Monsterology
Monsters and fantastical creatures are integral components of every culture and society. It’s easy to dismiss fantastical beasts such as Cyclopes, unicorns and mermaids as fanciful creations of story tellers with over-active imaginations. While this may be true, there are also often plausible explanations of either extinct or extant animals which could spark such tales. The intriguing pseudoscience of cryptozoology has a long history which is still strong today.
Marauding Cyclopes seem to have been rampant on the islands of mythological Ancient Greece. One of the explanations suggested for the origins of these one-eyed monsters stems from dwarf elephant fossils found on Cyprus. The central nasal cavity for the trunk may have been interpreted as a large single eye socket which could have sparked the legends. Plausible enough but, if true, the elephant origins doesn’t explain why Cyclopes are never depicted with tusks.
Convinced of their existence, Greek writers included unicorn descriptions in natural history rather than mythology writings. Medieval and Renaissance curiosity collections often included fragments of unicorn horns belonging to the real unicorns of the sea, narwhals. Leaving any magical capabilities aside, the existence of a single-horned artiodactyl isn’t that implausible. Pre-historic contact with a giant Eurasian rhinoceros, the Elasmotherium may be one origin of unicorn stories. More recently, the birth of a roe deer with an unusual genetic mutation resulting in a single central horn sparked many “modern day unicorn” stories.
When early explorers ventured beyond the dire “here be monsters” warning on their limited maps, monster sightings were often confirmed rather than dismissed. Christopher Columbus recorded mermaid encounters en route to discovering the New World in 1492. Sea manatees and their penchant for sometimes sitting upright in the water seem to be the most likely explanation for many mermaid stories – although, even allowing for their seaweed hair, given manatees’ rather homely appearance I often wonder why mermaids were always recounted as being so beautiful.
In later years, curious audiences could pay to see their very own mermaid in the scaly and furry flesh. Fiji mermaids comprised of a monkey’s torso sewn onto a fish’s tail were popular in 19th century sideshows. Although the Victorian public was rather more gullible than their modern day counterparts, it was not long before Fiji mermaids were identified as a hoax. Such trickery set a precedent which created difficulties when it came to scientific acceptance of seemingly fantastical creatures. In his excellent Life Stories series, David Attenborough recounts the scepticism with which European academics reacted to duck billed platypus specimens shipped over from Australia. Surely a creature with the beak of a duck, webbed feet and a non-descript hairy torso must be a hoax of taxonomic trickery? Sometimes real world animals are far more fantastical than any mythical beasts.
In our genomic age, the study and “proof” of mythical creatures has developed far beyond the amateur status of sewing body parts together. Recently, the Sasquatch genome project has sequenced and published big foot’s genome. The mitochondrial DNA has 100% homology with humans (I wonder why??) while the complete genome is a “mosaic of novel primate and human sequence”. Rejected by the journal of cryptozoology the results are published in a newly founded “peer reviewed” journal with the article only available for purchase and, curiously, remains largely unseen by anyone other than the study’s authors…
Whether based on grains of truth or pure fantasy, the field of monsterology remains strong today. I’m sure the Victorian mermaid stitchers are looking down on their Sasquatch geneticist descendants with pride.
Author
Sive Finlay: sfinlay[at]
Photo credit
wikimedia commons
Surviving experiments
Having just come through a particularly long and intense experiment (relatively unscathed) I thought I’d contribute some of the things I’ve learned and advice I’d give to other poor souls embarking on the exciting and terrifying world of empirical science.
1. Be organized!
I know this is a bit of a cliché but taking the time to work out exactly how much of everything you need, gather your chemicals, buying the labels etc.- it all pays off. Try, if you can, to run a number of pilots to iron out any blaring errors, work out difficult techniques and get familiar with how your system works. The absolute worst thing is to discover three days into an experiment that something isn’t working and you have to start all over again when you could have dealt with it weeks before.
2. Know your stats!
Another thing that I feel is really important and not always practiced or appreciated enough is to know what analysis you are intending to do with your results before you start. Understanding how you will analyse it makes a huge difference to the way and the efficiency with which you collect your data. Too many people don’t think about this in advance and the run into trouble once it comes to looking at their data. Knowing what you want from your data makes it a lot easier and straightforward to collect. It is also a lot more rewarding once you finish.
3. Accept you will have no life outside of work for the duration and share this fact
Realising this early is a big advantage. Warning friends and family in advance that you have time points that mean you can’t meet them in the pub, go for lunches or go away for the weekend saves frustration all round- they don’t think you are blowing them off and you don’t get that renewed sense of disappointment and questioning of “why am I doing this!?” every time you turn down an invitation for something more fun than looking down a microscope for 8 hours. It also saves boring them with your ‘hilarious’ “you’ll never guess what happened to me today? I held the pipette upside down!” stories that only you can appreciate right now, being the only thing to have happened to you all week.
4. Choose your listening and viewing carefully
Chances are you will be spending a lot of time alone and thus you will be turning to media for some company. I have a couple of pieces of advice about this. The first would be to not just rely on music. Singing along is fun for a while but the chances of a melancholic ballad coming on, or your dancing resulting in you knocking over bottles of liquid are quite high. Music all day every day for weeks also doesn’t do too much to pass the time. Chat shows or podcasts are great as you can let your brain engage they really make the time fly. I would also say to try and listen to a program that has the news on it so you remain somewhat in touch with the world. It is also a way of gaining perspective! A side note on TV as well, if you have late night time points, try to avoid too many murder mystery shows- leaves for an uncomfortable night alone in the dark lab in a creaking building!!
5. Make and effort to talk to people (and not just your equipment)
You can quickly cut yourself off from other people and goings on during your experiment and making an effort to go to coffee or pausing for a chat really can be the difference between going completely insane and being merely a little “frazzled”.
6. You’re probably a control freak- don’t panic if things don’t go exactly to plan
I imagine most people that have chosen to go down the empirical route have done so because underneath it all (or on surface!) you are somewhat of a control freak. You want to have power over your system, how it is designed and the kind of data you are going to generate. This is great but what it also means is that dealing with changes or mishaps can be hard. Most of the time these are things that can easily be adapted or fixed, so try not to cry when one thing goes slightly differently to how you had thought it would. Also, don’t count down the days. Take this from me, yes it is a comfort when you reach the last 2-3 days of the experiment but it isn’t much comfort waking up and saying “only 12 days left”. Definitely makes getting up harder!
7. Try to make it fun/pretty!
Experiments can be long, they can be tedious and they are exhausting. So why not do little things to make them just a little more fun and rewarding. Whether it is using one of your non-measuring moments to run and get your favourite coffee, buying sparkly labels and coloured beads to liven up your microcosms, or giving your equipment interesting names. These are all tiny changes that just might make coming into the lab that little bit brighter!
8. Embrace the insanity
If you are doing a long and time consuming experiment by yourself, you will go crazy. It is a simple truth. You reach a point where tedium meets stress meets exhaustion, and they seem to sum to delirium. However, embrace it, let yourself dance to that song when it comes on the radio while you’re pipetting, not chastise yourself too much for talking to the equipment (though see tip 4!) and remember that, in science, a little crazy is expected, even endearing. The mad scientist is already a thing, so you clearly aren’t going to ruin the rep.
9. Be prepared for the come down
This is kind of a strange one, but I think one of the more important ones. Your experiment will end (even if it doesn’t feel like it!). When it does, you need to remember that life is waiting for you again. I think it is a bit like finishing that first exam, it’s finally over and you’re delighted, but then there’s tomorrow to study for. Suddenly you need to make it up to friends, your emails, and your data. Try and prepare for this towards the end of your experiment: Glance at those unopened emails, file all those unread papers, sneak a brief peek at your diary beyond the page marked “end of experiment” circled a thousand times in red pen. This will make the day after the end of your experiment a little less of a shock!
10. Remember you are doing SCIENCE
The last thing and most important of all: Smile and remember, you’re doing that magical thing called science!! However tedious and time consuming, it’s amazing and exciting and you love it!!
Author
Deirdre McClean: mccleadm[at]
Photo credit
wikimedia commons
Technically speaking…
Following the excellent Botany/Zoology postgraduate symposium in TCD a couple of weeks ago, we had a discussion in NERD club about giving scientific presentations – what makes a good one, what makes a bad one and which were the best in the symposium? Actually, we didn’t do the last bit, and scarily I could remember very few talks a week after the event (“do you remember so and so’s slide about x y and z?” NO!!). So, either I am becoming old and forgetful (likely), or I wonder whether it’s some form of desensitisation? Every conference is full of short talks I listen to and think “that was interesting” and then immediately forget. How can we give presentations that won’t be forgotten, or at least will be remembered for all the right reasons? Below are some of the points we discussed as a group – not an exhaustive list, but the random ramblings of a few academics, postdocs and postgrads.
What are the things to avoid – what makes a bad talk?
- Speaker running over time (both their own fault for putting too much in, and the chair’s fault for not keeping time properly).
- Too much text on slides – undergrads love it if there’s plenty for them to copy down as the lecturer is speaking (or to learn off by heart from the powerpoint slides just before the exam), but telling a story without the distraction of a load of text is much better for a scientific talk.
- Too much content – need to stick to one (or two) key take-home messages, particularly if the talk is just one of many people will hear during the course of a conference.
- Too many graphs – especially ones that are too small to see properly, or that are irrelevant – if a speaker needs to say “ignore all the graphs on the slide except the one in the top right” then they haven’t done their job of tailoring their talk to their audience and just presenting the one on the top right.
- Jargon – even in a room full of eco-evo people, abbreviations and technical terms should be avoided (as should giving the name of a gene or biochemical pathway in the talk title – but we may be biased on this one!)
- Not knowing what is coming up on the next slide – comes from a lack of practice
- Colour-blind insensitive colour schemes – avoid red on green and other such indistinguishable schemes
- Reading out the acknowledgements – this led to a discussion of whether the acknowledgements should come at the beginning or the end of a talk. The problem with having them at the end is the audience is left looking at a list of funders, collaborators and helpers, rather than the key take home message. The problem with having them at the beginning is the audience wants the speaker to get on and talk about something interesting. We ended up deciding that for short conference style presentations, having them at the end was best, but perhaps not covering a whole slide so that the key message/awesome graph can still be on the last slide to give the audience something to think about whilst clapping. But for seminars or longer talks, acknowledging that the work was a group effort at the beginning was a nice thing to do. And funding agencies could just be acknowledged with a logo on the title slide.
- Bad chairing – ok, so that one’s not the speaker’s fault, but it is very annoying
And what makes a good talk?
- A good story or narrative – a good talk tells the story in such a way that you are drawn in, the approach is logical (and seemingly obvious and you’re left thinking “why has no-one done this before?”) and the findings interesting and digestable
- Targeting the scope and contents of the talk to the time slot – putting enough in, but not trying to include too much. Getting the balance right.
- Leading the audience through the presentation so that they don’t get lost – clear ideas and questions as slide titles rather than introduction/methods/results/conclusions.
- Being confident (but not cocky). Being enthusiastic. Being yourself, or doing a really good job at acting confident and enthusiastic.
- Making eye contact or scanning the room – not picking on one person to talk to as this can be intimidating for that member of the audience. If actually making eye contact can be distracting, then looking at people’s foreheads or just over their heads, so it looks like you are making eye contact.
- Spend time explaining graphs/figures – the audience gets lost if the graphs just flash up with no explanation – point out the trends or important parts, explain axes and colours if necessary (but don’t go on too long). Try not to just pull figures from papers/your thesis, redraw graphs to simplify them and make them clear so that they aid the audience in following your story, and don’t make things more complicated.
- Know your audience and target your talk to them.
- Humour – use with caution.
- Have the ability to give your talk without any powerpoint slides/prezi – there may be a power-cut and you just have to carry on.
- Practice your talk – practice the slide transitions so that you know what’s coming up next and how you’re going to link the slides.
There are heaps of resources out there which say more or less the same thing – I really like Jane Wilton et al.’s BES Bulletin article
And here’s Michael Alley’s “The craft of scientific presentations”
And here are some more (from a VERY brief google search)…
http://matt.might.net/articles/academic-presentation-tips/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/agu/scientific_talk.html
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/Hany_Farid/Tutorials/Entries/2011/6/2_How_to_give_a_good_talk.html
http://oikosjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/talk-and-stats-tips.pdf
Author
Jane Stout: stoutj@tcd.ie
Photo credit
http://muratak.com/2011/11/24/5-ways-to-improve-your-pitches/
Biodiversity loss and ecosystem stability
Understanding how species extinctions affect the stability of ecosystems is fundamental to the prediction of future biodiversity loss and to ensuring the reliable provision of ecosystem services. In a paper published recently in Ecology Letters*, we (researchers from the School of Natural Sciences in Trinity College Dublin and the Trinity Centre for Biodiversity Research, together with collaborators from Northern Ireland, Spain and Switzerland) show that the destabilising effect of biodiversity loss is likely to be considerably greater than thought previously.
Ecosystem stability has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of papers. It occupies a prominent place in both fundamental and applied ecological research. However, ecological stability is regularly touted as a multifaceted and complex concept. This is because there are many different ways in which we can measure the stability of ecosystems. These include, for example, the variability of systems over time or their ability to resist or recover from disturbances. However, in spite of its multifaceted nature, almost all studies focus only on a single measure to characterise ecosystem stability. Further, the few studies that measured more than one component of stability considered them as independent and therefore analysed them separately, in spite of the fact that they are likely to be related to one another.
Using an experimental study done on a marine rocky shore, we examined the effects of the loss of different consumer species, including both predators and their prey, on multiple distinct components of ecological stability simultaneously. We show for the first time that, even though stability is a relatively simple property of ecological communities, different species contribute in different ways to the maintenance of stability. Moreover, our study also demonstrates that the loss of species from ecosystems can modify and even decouple relationships among components of stability. Ignoring the multifaceted nature of stability therefore risks underestimating significantly the potential of perturbations to destabilize ecosystems. In conclusion, our study indicates that we currently underestimate significantly the overall destabilizing effect of biodiversity loss and thus the true scale of the global extinction crisis that we face.
Author
Ian Donohue: ian.donohue@tcd.ie
Photo credit
A hefty heating bill?
The Toco Toucan (Ramphastos toco) is the largest species in the toucan family but not only that, it has the largest bill relative to body size of all birds. As with most things in Zoology the function of the bill has been hotly debated, even Darwin himself weighed in with an explanation of his own. He thought that the exaggerated size of the bill may have been due to sexual selection. Seems a little extreme though, especially when you consider all the adaptations for flight birds already exhibit (see here for the basics). Why then would natural selection begin to select individuals with heavy large beaks, surely the extra matings acquired due to the size of your “birdhood” would be offset by your reduced capacity for flight. Right?
Well that depends, what if there were other benefits to having this huge bill. Like for example thermoregulation. Like other enlarged body parts used for thermoregulation, like for example the enlarged ears of many desert dwelling mammals, the bill of the toucan is highly vascularised (supplied with blood vessels) and it seems the toucan has the ability to control the amount of blood flowing to the blood vessels around the bill.
Thermoregulation is somewhat of a hot topic (if you’ll pardon the pun), recently there has been some suggestion that the plates and spikes of the Stegosaurus may have been candidates for thermoregulatory function, where they had been previously thought to have been for defence. Similarly and somewhat more bizarrelythe long neck of many animals both extant and extinct has been discussed as a possible means of thermoregulaltion in this wonderful article by Wilkinson and Ruxton (2011).
So the long and the short of it? As with many aspects of the animal kingdom, without wanting to blunt Occam’s razor the simplest answer may not always be correct.
Author
Keith McMahon: mcmahok[at]tcd.ie
Photo credit
The popularity of bees
Because my research often uses bees as the study subject, friends and family are always forwarding links to news and culture that concerns these fascinating creatures. Let me list for you some of my favourites: I found this article about the debate surrounding the ban on neonicotinoids within the EU on twitter. On a lighter note, a performance group teamed up with a group of monks at Glenstal Abbey to compose a “Song of the bees” based on scientific recordings and data from honeybees. A friend on facebook sent me this comic, which describes the seeming absurdity of honeybee workers sacrificing themselves for their hives. Another facebook find was this spoof article which points out that we could probably solve the problem of bee decline if bees privatised. Finally, friends and family in Philadelphia informed me that Drexel University recently named its new department the BEES department! That last one is a little deceiving because BEES stands for Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science, so they don’t actually focus on the study of bees. I think it’s still significant that the department’s acronym features our little buzzing friends though. In addition to these references, the birthday and Christmas gifts I’ve received over the past three years include bee embroidered hand towels, wine glasses with bees painted on them, a bracelet with a bee charm, and a stuffed bee .
What is apparent from all of these links and articles (and the availability of the plethora of bee paraphernalia my lovely friends and family continue to buy for me), is that bees are incredibly popular right now. And I can’t help but ask myself, what is the attraction?
My first question was am I just noticing these references more because I started studying bees in the last few years? Honestly if you asked me to point out the difference between a honeybee and a bumblebee before I went to college, I’m sure I wouldn’t have been able to do it. But it turns out it’s not personal bias, not according to the scientific literature anyway. The graph below is the result of a search in Web of Science for papers that contain the word “bee” or “bees” in the topic. Clearly there has been increased interest in bees since the 1940’s. In the last few years the publications on bees have been especially numerous, for example there were 1796 records in 2012.
Okay, so bees are being studied more. But why does the public seem to be so intrigued by these organisms? Why do people love bees?
I have a few thoughts- I’ll start with the obvious:
1.) Bees make honey.
Or so many think. In reality, not all bees make honey. The honey-like substance that bumblebees produce would not be fit for consumption- they don’t keep their colonies nice and neat like honeybees do, so you’d be likely to get a mouth full of bacteria or bee larvae in your honey if it came from a bumblebee. But everyone thinks all bees make honey, and after all, honey is delicious.
2.) The social nature of bees.
The average person may not know much about solitary bees or the differences in the life cycles of bee species, but usually they can tell you that honeybees have a queen. People also commonly know that the queen bee is responsible for producing all the rest of the bees, and that the rest of the bees in the colony will fight to the death to protect her. I’m not trying to dive too deeply into psychology here, but I think that the apparent altruism of bees attracts people to them and makes them a more sympathetic organism than we would normally consider something with a sting. People also like the concept of a “superorganism.”
3.) The “busy bee”
If you’ve ever watched a bee in the springtime foraging on a flower it’s clear that they are working hard. The work ethic of bees is impressive! I think people like that bees put in a hard day’s work, collecting food for themselves and their brood. It makes us think kindly of them, the working class insect.
4.) The ecosystem service
Maybe my first three reasons seem a bit silly and have left you unconvinced, so I will end with a more scientific explanation. We’ve known for some time that bees make excellent pollinators, and pollination is an important ecosystem service. In 2006 Science published two studies describing declines in pollinators in Europe and North America. These findings were compounded by the emergence of colony collapse disorder just a year or so later, leading to intense fear that our helpful honeybees were experiencing declines in population that they simply wouldn’t be able to recover from. The next question was what will be the impact of declining bee populations on food security? Turns out it’s rather significant. Studies have shown that the global economic value of pollination is over €153 billion. Furthermore, a study in March demonstrated that honeybees cannot replace the value of pollination services from wild pollinators; we can’t just worry about the honeybees, wild bees are important to increasing yields as well. Food security is not something we tend to take lightly, so our pollinators have intrinsic value. This helps explain the incredible media coverage bees have been receiving lately, especially regarding the European ban of neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides that have been shown to be harmful to bees.
I wonder though, how many people know the facts about how important bees are to the ecosystem service of pollination and therefore food security? How many people really like them because they are fuzzy, make sweet honey, and are hard workers? I suppose you could argue that it doesn’t matter why people are attracted to bees, it’s positive regardless because it encourages money to be spent on research into why they are declining and how we can conserve their populations. I think it’s helpful to try to understand why bees have become a sort of flagship species. That way we can better understand what traits cause humans to assign intrinsic value to organisms for future conservation work.
Author
Erin Jo Tiedeken: tiedekee[at]tcd.ie
Photo credit
wikimedia commons
School of Natural Sciences Postgraduate Symposium: Part 4/4
On the 15th and 16th April we had one of my favourite events at Trinity College Dublin: the annual School of Natural Sciences Postgraduate Symposium. Over the course of two days many of our PhD students presented their work to the School. We also had two amazing plenary talks from Dr Nick Isaac (CEH) and Professor Jennifer McElwain (UCD). For those of you who are interested in exactly what we work on here at EcoEvo@TCD, here are the abstracts from the PhD student presentations. Check out the TCD website for more details!
Paul Egan: A growing problem − invasive species distribution modelling of Rhododendron ponticum and the implications for conservation.
The invasive alien Rhododendron ponticum is a widely naturalised and problematic weed throughout Ireland, Britain and areas of NW continental Europe. Using invasive species distribution modelling (iSDM) at a fine (2 km) spatial resolution, we examined the bioclimatic and landscape factors which govern the distributional pattern of R. poniticum across the Atlantic biogeographical region compared to its native range in Iberia and the Black Sea region. Good model performance allowed successful prediction of known areas of intense invasion. Model predictions of habitat suitability can help indicate the challenges for local irradication of R. ponticum and therefore help prioritize conservation efforts. Paradoxically, iSDMs generated from the invasive range also provides much needed assessment of the species’ severely restricted native range, where R. ponticum is presently classified as endangered.
Ruby Prickett [@RubyPrickett]: Geographical, ecological and genetic characterisation of perennial biomass grasses.
Evidence suggests that increasing CO2 concentration from fossil fuels in the atmosphere is contributing to global climate change. There is great interest in producing energy from biological sources such as willow (Salix spp.), and the grass Miscanthus. This project aims to contribute to the development of grasses of the C4 genus Miscanthus and several C3 species (Dactylis glomerata, Festuca arundinacea and Phalaris arundinacea) for use as biomass crops, particularly on marginal land. This project aims to produce maps and species distribution models for each of the four species, to identify potential areas for production and their impact on biodiversity; to collect new accessions of Dactylis and Phalaris in the Northwest Europe and Miscanthus in Asia; and to assess the genetic diversity within each species.
Shane McGuinness [@S_Mc_G]: Tourists, farmers and agri-industry: the political ecology of human-wildlife conflict on the margins of a Rwandan protected area. *Highly commended*
As human populations grow, protected areas are put under increasing threat from resource extraction and associated loss of ecosystem services. Furthermore, improved conservation and protection has led to growing faunal populations within these, increasing interactions with neighbouring human populations and reducing support for conservation actions. This is particularly acute where communities bordering protected areas are subsistence farmers. This paper addressed conflict on the margins of Volcanoes National Park, northern Rwanda, through a mixed methods political ecology perspective. Lying in the Albertine Rift Biodiversity Hotspot, it harbours endemic species of primate (mountain gorilla, golden monkey) and significant yet understudied biodiversity, but is bordered by one of the most densely populated regions of mainland Africa. Given the tourism value of this national park and the value of its surrounding land for export-driven agri-industry, the concerns of park-adjacent communities require specific consideration.
Sven Batke: Past hurricanes in predicting present diversity and richness patterns in Cusuco National Park, Honduras. *Best talk 2/2*
High energy weather events are often expected to play a substantial role in biotic community dynamics and large scale diversity patterns but their contribution is hard to prove. I am going to present an overview on how to generate hurricane exposure data at a mesoclimate level for a specific region. Moreover, I am going to present some results that highlight the link between exposure vulnerability and observed tree damage and the potential effect hurricane winds might have on canopy epiphyte diversity patterns.
Vishnu Mohanan [@vmohanan]: Characterisation of lignin and cellulose genes in biomass and energy crops. Sadly Vishnu missed the symposium but we still have his abstract…
Dwindling fossil fuel reserves requires us to look for other sources of energy and emerging bioenergy grasses provides us with an alternative such as Miscanthus, maize, switchgrass and several woody bamboos. Bamboos (subfamily Bambusoideae) have evolved a woody character via enhancement of the lignocellulosic component of vascular tissue, especially vessels. Reeds (e.g. Arundo, Phragmites, subfamily Arundinoideae) and Panicoideae (e.g. Saccharum, Miscanthus, Panicum) have also evolved this trait. It is not known if they have achieved this via alternative biosynthetic paths/genes. Our aim is to first investigate the evolution of genes known to be important for woodiness in grasses (cellulose synthase genes, Cesl, is one such gene family). Secondly, we aim to investigate the effects of woodiness on grass evolution to see if woodiness was a significant key innovation for speciation in the groups that have evolved it.