Welcome back!

The topic for this week is the effect climate change has on phenology.

You might be asking yourself, “What is phenology?”.

Well it`s your lucky day because I have the answer for you! According to USGS.gov, phenology is defined as “the study of the influence of climate on the timing of biological events, such as annual plant flowering and seasonal bird migration”. Phenology is often referred to as natures calendar as it studies reoccurring plant and animal life stages.

First, I`m going to discuss some graphs that depict long-term temperature trends before leading to the discussion of temperatures effect on bee and orchid pollination. The values from my scatter plots come from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office which recorded mean monthly temperature data from three cities: London, Bristol, and Preston. The monthly temperature data from 1659-2016 was downloaded by researchers from the UK Meteorological Office to determine how average temperature has changed over the span of 350 years. 

For those of you that don`t live for the rush of reading scientific graphs I will explain what the graphs mean and why they are important. As you will notice from my scatter plots, the year is on the x-axis and the average temperature is on the y axis. Is it important which variable goes where? You betcha! I can hear my high school teacher lecturing in my ear that the “independent” variable goes on the x-axis while the “dependent” variable goes on the y-axis. Therefore, the year is the independent variable whereas the average temperature is the dependent variable. Now that we have that sorted, let`s move on to interpreting the trend line.

The trend line indicates that the annual temperature has increased over time. The trend line shows that the average temperature rose from roughly 8.75°C  in 1659 to 9.75°C in 2009. A rise in average annual temperature by 1°C in a span of 350 years isn`t that bad, right? Wrong! If the Earths age (4.5 billion years) was compressed into a 12-month period, 350 years would be equivalent to 2.4 seconds. Therefore, a rise in temperature by 1 °C in the span of 2.4 seconds is very dramatic. The trend line indicates that the average temperature has increased from February- April in a similar pattern. The average temperature being roughly 5.1°C in 1659 and rose to 6.4°C by 2009. Again, a rise is seen in average temperature from March-May. Average temperature being 7.8°C  in 1659 and rises to 8.8°C by 2009.

What does this mean?

According to NASA, this increase in temperature is due to “a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere”. Most of the warming in this 350-year span occurred in the past 35 years.

Next, let`s look at the correlations in the average temperature (Feb – April) vs. year and average temperature (March – May) vs. year scatter plots. The coefficient of determination (R²) is defined by StatTrek as the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (average temperature) that is predictable from the independent variable (year). The scatterplot depicting average temperature from February-April has a coefficient of determination that equals 0.087 while the scatterplot depicting average temperature from March-May has a coefficient of determination that equals 0.101. Now what does this mean? The graph that depicts the strongest relationship between temperature and year is the latter. The higher the coefficient of determination is, the stronger the relationship between the independent and dependent variable is. The R² value of 0.087 for average temperature from February-April means that 8.7% of the variance in average temperature is predictable by the year. While the R² value of 0.101 for average temperature from March-May means that 10.1% of the variance in average temperature is predictable by the year.

Scatter plots are a great way to study climate change. Next up is another scatter plot exemplifying a great topic of phenology; bees and their duty to pollinate flowers.

The Early Spider Orchid (Ophrys sphegodes) is pollinated by the Solitary Bee (Andrena nigroaenea). These orchids use sexual deception to attract pollinators. They accomplish this by producing the female bees sex pheromones as well as by looking and feeling like a female bee. This orchid basically catfishes the male bee to become pollinated. I`ll just leave this meme right here….

The peak flowering dates, periods with the highest number of flower observation, were determined for each year. Researchers examined records of the flight dates for the Solitary Bee to understand how the timing of the bee reproduction aligns with peak flowering dates. I used this data to create this scatter plot of bee arrival time vs orchid flowering time to understand the impact climate change has. Glancing at the graph it can be determined that there is a mismatch in the two events which is caused by the increasing temperatures mentioned previously.

Looking more in depth at the scatter plot it can be seen that at 7°C the timing of the arrival of bees has basically ended while the peak flowering time has barely begun. This means that the bees are arriving earlier than the orchids peak flowering time. Therefore, less orchids will be pollinated. At 10°C the timing of the arrival of bees ended 2°C ago while the peak flowering time has just ended. This means there is a period of time where the flowers are not being pollinated by the bees. The scatter plot helps to visualize the offsetting of this bee arrival time and peak orchid flowering time. These bar graphs are another way to visually see the orchid/bee issue. These bar graphs, with error bars, look at comparing peak orchid flowering times and the years as well as bees first flight and the years.

 The bar graphs show that orchid flowering time decreases drastically from the beginning of the century (1848-1900) to the end of the century (1954 – 2006) while bee activity decreases less drastically from the beginning of the century to the end. Using the data from the graph, it can be extrapolated that continued increases in global temperature might affect the reproductive success of the orchid in a negative way. The peak flowering time decreased dramatically from the beginning of the century to the end therefore, a negative trend will likely continue.

These practical examples show how phenology is all around us and why it is such an important field of study. Phenology is important because it affects whether plants and animals will survive in their environments which can affect the ecosystem around them.

Cicadas. Yes, those red-eyed, crunchy, chirping devils that sing their summer song for a month then disappear, leaving their summer skins and the echos of their ghostly melody. I have fond childhood memories of hunting for the crunchy cicada molt as if it was hidden treasure! Ever wonder why it seems like there is a plague of cicadas while some summers you may only spot a single cicada molt? There are annual cicadas that emerge every year and there are also “periodical” cicadas which emerge in distinct regions after spending a 13- or 17-year span growing underground. I distinctly remember the summer of 8th grade was The Summer of the Cicadas. It was nightmarish as they covered everything and I`d often have to dodge them while walking outside. Curiously, cicadas began to emerge four years earlier than anticipated in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Ohio and Indiana in 2017.

What could cause this?

The answer is climate change.  According to Keith Clay, a biologist and cicada expert at Indiana University Bloomington, in the article Brood Awakening: 17-year Cicadas Emerge 4 Years Early, “cicada nymphs may be growing to a threshold size so quickly that their internal biological clock is miscalculating when it is time to emerge”. The rising temperatures cause the soil to be warmer which miscalculates the biological clocks of the cicadas, causing them to emerge early. 

This pattern could be explained best using a scatter plot showing how the temperature has affected the early emergence of the periodical cicadas. Although climate change should not be ruled out, alternatives to this hypothesis need to be considered such as destruction/disruption of habitat, change in soil, or evolution of cicada social structure. 

Although there is so much evidence for the existence of climate change, especially the part humans have played in it, the majority of Americans are skeptical about the entirety of climate change or certain aspects of it.  According to a peer reviewed journal by Alexis Hannart called Probabilities of Causation of Climate Changes stated that ‘‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”.  As I stated in my previous blog, science is about ignorance and curiosity. We would not have science with neither ignorance nor curiosity therefore we must ignite curiosity in those ignorant on certain topics so there can be effective communication between scientists and non-scientists. Although there are challenges involved with communicating to the general public about a climate change. Some people are not receptive to science as they`d rather believe in a certain religion or deity, while others may chose not to accept the theory of climate change as it would be accepting the fault of humanity in contributing to it. A way to address some of these concerns would be to communicate effectively with the audience and ensure them that believing in climate change neither negates their religion nor blames them as an individual for the change in climate. Also mentioning certain climate change impact examples that the general public has probably experienced such as droughts, early emergence of cicadas, or rising water levels would be a great way to get a dialogue started and ignite curiosity.

To conclude I`d like to restate the importance of understanding phenology and the impact climate change has on it. While some people may hope they can just close their eyes and will climate change to disappear, that simply won`t happen. We need to think consciously about our actions and their ecological consequences. A better tomorrow starts with us today!

                                 “Read, Learn, Inspire”

Until next time!

~Courtney Hattaway-Burchett

 

 

Welcome to my first blog post!

 

Today we`ll be talking about communication in the scientific community and why effective communication is so important for scientists communicating to non-scientists. Communication is such an important aspect of our day to day life. Whether we are communicating through social media sites, over email, texting, or even through letters, one aspect is still the same. To be able to communicate we must be able to understand the message. I have a funny (not at the time) personal example of this!

I was recently traveling through Madrid, Spain and overestimated the amount of English speakers in the city. Therefore, I could not understand the language and ended up an hour and half walk from where I needed to be while in a foreign city! I asked several people how to buy a train ticket as all the prompts were in Spanish, which I`m very limited in. No one I spoke with could speak English so we had an obvious language barrier. The same is true for science. If the audience speaks English and the speaker is speaking Spanish then no one will learn anything. Scientists must learn effective communication or the audience will figuratively end up an hour and a half walk in the wrong direction in a foreign city!

The importance of  science communication was addressed in a YouTube video by ANU TV. Alan Alda stated that “Everyone is too ignorant about science. That is what science is about: Science is about satisfying the ignorance we all naturally possess”. I believe that what Alda meant by this statement is that we all possess ignorance but we all possess curiosity as well. Without ignorance we would have no need for science and without curiosity we would not be inquisitive enough to seek out knowledge that science can explain. Science would not be a concept without curiosity and would not be studied without ignorance. I believe that Alda was trying to convey that scientists must understand how to ignite curiosity to those ignorant about science and also be able to communicate their scientific finding efficiently to the general public. The general public must posses the ignorance and curiosity to obtain knowledge from the scientist. A challenge with this type of engagement could be a language barrier. Just like in my Madrid example, language barriers do exist in science as most scientists use jargon to explain their findings. Of course non-scientists will not understand the jargon and  language barriers will exist. Therefore, if a scientist cannot communicate in a way that can be understood by all members of society then his scientific findings will not be established.

I plan to reflect the aims of science communication through my blog by writing in a personal way, teaching the language, and igniting curiosity. Writing in a personal way makes science easier to understand and communicates more efficiently with the reader. Communication cannot occur if you are communicating to someone who does not speak the same language so slowly introducing readers to scientific jargon would be a great way to teach the language of science. This is the same concept as if I had taken time to slowly learn Spanish before traveling to Madrid. I most likely would not have been lost if I had done so. Science cannot occur without communication so learning the jargon is important for being able to understand scientific concepts. As stated by Alda, curiosity must be ignited for the general public by the scientist for science to be learned. An individual must possess more curiosity than ignorance if they are going to learn.

Science communication is defined by Monica Feliu-Mojers in her blog “Effective Communication, Better Science” as “meaning any activity that involves one person transmitting science-related information to another, from peer-reviewed articles to tweets”. Aside from this blog, I personally carry out science communication constantly through my Facebook page. I find myself constantly sharing science articles or writing my own science related posts as I did while I completed my pre-veterinary internship in Africa. Effective communication is vital in science because expressing a concept needs to be done clearly and concisely if the message is going to be understood. Science flourishes when there is effective communication. Communication is important for scientists and non-scientists alike as both can benefit from effective communication. Scientists can benefit from effective communication by securing grants for their research, secure better jobs, and write better research papers if they have the skill of effective communication. Feliu-Mojers equates their success as a scientist with their success communicating. Effective communication benefits non-scientists by making science more accessible and understood. Even students can benefit from effective science communication as it will help us learn how to communicate effectively if/when we become scientists. I think effective communication for students poses as a difficult skill to learn since it`s something we haven’t quite been taught yet. Felie-Mojer explains the difficulty scientists might have with effective communication such as using too much jargon or giving an overly complex answer for the audience filled with scientists as well as non-scientists. Therefore, knowing your audience is extremely important to communicate effectively.

In the YouTube video by EU Science and Innovation Center, Rhonda Smith, the director of Minerva Communication, describes science communication as being about communicating to non-experts. This definition is similar to the previously mentioned definition of science communication by Monica Feliu-Mojer’s as involving one person transmitting science-related information to another. Feliu-Mojer does not necessarily define science communication as experts communicating to non-experts but any individual communicating to another through the transmission of science-related material. Rhonda Smith makes the argument that scientists communicating to scientists will not accomplish anything therefore science communication needs to be scientist to non-scientist. Science communication is important to researchers and the general public because the general public is paying for the research that scientists complete through tax dollars therefore they deserve the right to know what their tax money is going towards. As stated by Rhonda Smith “dissemination is about the production of papers that can be presented to peer review journals and ensuring that those are published”. These peer review journals that she mentioned are what college students like me use in our research papers. While communication and dissemination differ, both are important. Communication can be used to elaborate on and expand knowledge of non-scientists as well as to inform. Dissemination is used for results by the audience.

As a real life example of a scientific blogs success in effective scientific communication, I viewed Your Wild Life. This blog`s strength is that it appeals to non-scientists and scientists alike and has interesting titles that do not include unnecessary scientific jargon. The weakness would be that it seems the articles only cover a handful of topics and I feel that information in the article might be repetitive. The titles “Does A Cat`s Personality Predict its Hunting?” and “What To Do About the Ants in Your Kitchen” stood out to me because I have a pesky kitty that tries to hunt lizards through the glass door and ants in the kitchen is a dreaded summer issue for many people. These titles are common topics that a variety of people are interested in and are good titles to draw readers in. I read “What To Do About the Ants in Your Kitchen” by Rob Dunn  and found it very interesting although it had nothing to do with ants in the kitchen. This article studied the different species of ants found in a New York neighborhood. The article stated it studied ants in peoples backyards because it`s something that had not been studied before. Non-scientists overlooked these backyard ants because they thought someone else already understood them while scientists overlooked them in preference of more remote locations. This is a real life example of the lack of proper communication between scientists and non-scientists. This study was very successful and two new ant species were discovered. Another thing about this study that I found interesting was that they enlisted the community to send in backyard ant samples. I find it amazing that the community could get involved in this research project and it was a way for scientists to engage non-scientists curiosity just as Alan Alda had stated. I also read “Does A Cat`s Personality Predict its Hunting?” by Brandon McDonald. This article stated that a cats personality discovered through a linked quiz, diet, and movement tracked through GPS would help determine through a study if hunting can be predicted through a cat`s personality. This article was less of a finished study and more of an explanation of continuing research. I think I would like to include certain aspects of Your Wild Life in my own blog. I enjoyed that the articles were attention grabbing and the articles themselves were easy to read. I also enjoyed the focus on communication between scientist and non-scientists.

Communication is important in our day to day life and it is especially important in science. Practicing communicating efficiently in science is no longer considered a soft skill so practicing could be extremely important later in life. I recommend that all my readers practice this skill in their lives. I hope you read, learned, and will inspire!

Until next week!