Evolving InteractionsFrom plant/animal to innovation/inspiration

BSc (Hons) Coastal Marine Biology

Dissertation: Investigating the effects of desiccation on photosynthetic recovery rates of several species of Fucus

F. serratus F. spiralis F. spiralis forma nanus

Where it all started…

www.hull.ac.uk/cems

PhD: The application of a functional group approach to algal-grazer interactions

The world was my alga…

“Many zoologists consider algae only as fodder, and many phycologists consider grazers merely as a nuisance to their algae”(Hawkins & Hartnoll, 1983)

Table 1. Algal functional groups (adapted from Steneck & Watling, 1982)

Functional Group

Representatives Susceptibilityto Grazing

FG1. Microalgae

Diatoms High

Low

FG2. Filamentous algae

Cladophora rupestris

Ceramium sp.Polysiphonia sp.

FG3. Foliose algae

Ulva lactuca

Ulva intestinalisDumontia contortaPalmaria palmata

Porphyra sp.FG4. Corticated macrophytes

Mastocarpus stellatus

Osmundea pinnatifidaRhodomela confervoides

FG5. Leathery macrophytes

Fucus serratus

Ascophyllum nodosumLaminaria digitata

FG6. Articulated calcareous algae

Corallina officinalis

FG7. Crustosecoralline algae

Lithophyllum incrustans

Verrucaria maura

Littorina littorea

Idotea granulosa

www.hull.ac.uk/cems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6Mean n

um

ber

of L. lit

tore

a

choosin

g a

lgae fro

m e

ach

functio

nal g

roup +

/- S

.E.

a

a, c

a, c

a, b, c

b

P < 0.001

Fig. 1. Mean number of Littorina littorea choosing algae from each functional group ( standard error) in two-way choice experiments (n = 120).

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6

Mean w

et w

eig

ht eate

n (

g)

by

I.g

ranulo

sa

+/-

S.E

.

Fig. 2. Mean wet weight of each functional group consumed ( standard error) by Idotea granulosa (n = 54).

Grazer ±: P < 0.001FG: P < 0.004

Grazer± * FG: P = 0.08

www.hull.ac.uk/cems

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

C. r

upes

tris

Cer

amiu

m sp.

Polys

iphon

ia s

p.

U. l

actu

ca

U. i

ntes

tinal

is

D. c

onto

rta

P. palm

ata

M. s

tella

tus

O. p

innat

ifida

R. c

onfe

rvoi

des

F. serra

tus

L. d

igita

ta

A. nod

osum

C. o

fficina

lis

Mean w

et w

eig

ht eate

n (

g)

by

L.li

ttore

a +

/- S

.E.

Fig. 3: Mean wet weight of each algal species consumed ( standard error) by Littorina littorea (n = 84).

Grazer ±: P < 0.001Species: P < 0.001

Grazer± * Species: P = 0.003

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6

Mean w

et w

eig

ht eate

n (

g)

by

I. g

ranulo

sa

+/-

S.E

.

Whole plant Agar

Fig. 4. Mean wet weight of each morphological type from each functional group consumed ( standard error) by Idotea granulosa in single-choice experiments (n = 108).

Grazer ±: P < 0.001FG morphology: P < 0.001

Grazer± * FG morphology: P < 0.001

1. Alga & water unchanged2. Alga unchanged; water changed

every three days3. Alga & water changed every

three days4. Alga changed every three days;

water unchangedGrazer-free controls:5. Alga and water changed every

three days6. Alga and water unchanged Fig. 5. Average amount of algae consumed by L. littorea over 21 days across six treatments ((◊

treatment 1, ■ treatment 2, ∆ treatment 3, × treatment 4 ж treatment 5 ● treatment 6)..

P > 0.05

www.hull.ac.uk/cems

www.hull.ac.uk/cems

Fig. 6. PCA of transformed nutrient data for all algal species.

Calorific value

Ash

Fig. 7. PCA of transformed nutrient data for 10 algal species, excluding C. officinalis.

Calorific Value/Ash

Fat

Calcium/Ash

ND

F/P

rote

in

Calorific value

Ash/ProteinWith PhD Supervisor, Dr Graham Scott

Tobago 2004

Indonesia 2008-2009

Development of teaching skills&

My love of field work…

Millport 2003-2007

Mallorca 2003-2007

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/staff/profile/sara.marsham

Marine Biology Teaching Fellow

Academic Roles

School ‘Teaching Champion’

Chair of School Learning, Teaching & Student Experience Committee

Module Leader/Overseas Field Trip Co-ordinator

Peer Mentor Co-ordinator

Departmental Academic Library Representative

Great North Museum Academic Teaching and Research Committee

ERIC North East Board Member

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

A TurningPoint for Student Feedback

Using TurningPoint to collect module feedback

Funded through Newcastle University Just One Thing project

Oral feedback from students noted during session and discussed at that time

Formal written response generated by teaching team

All feedback put on VLE and in Module Boxes

Overall positive response from students

Staff believe trials were successful – implemented in other modules

20.4%

7.5%

16.1%

7.5%

48.4%

Poor Average High

32.3%

67.7%

Paper form TurningPoint

How do you rate using TurningPoint for collecting

module feedback?

Do you prefer the paper form or this interactive method?

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Graduate Employability Skills for Marine Scientists

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Funded by University Innovation Fund

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

My placement helped me develop my

graduate skills

1 2 3 4 5

12% 12%

30%

39%

6%

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

3% 3%

24%

52%

18%

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I feel more confident in

my employability

Part of the Turnitin software that allows you to provide feedback and mark on-line

Student uploads their work in the same way as they would if the work was being originality checked

Using GradeMark for electronic feedback

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Funded by University Innovation Fund

Turning criteria into comments

S/T

A

R

1 2 3 4 5 6

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Each comment linked to one of the marking criteria with letter and number

For each component, comment on: How student meets criterion

What student could have done to achieve next grade boundary

R 4

R 5

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

75% found it useful to have the marking criteria in advance

69% thought electronic feedback makes it easier to give or to understand grammatical/style comments

80% thought electronic marking encourages or provides more positive feedback

79% would like to have received more electronic feedback in other modules

Undergraduate-led science conferences

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

NUTS

Innovation and Pedagogic Research

Opportunity for all colleagues interested in teaching and scholarship to meet

Share good practice across disciples

Enhance communication and collaboration

Hold regular, informal meetings to discuss work related to teaching and scholarship activities

Colleagues to engage with Faculty Representatives

Dr JC Penet

Dr Vanessa Armstrong

Mr Chandra Vemury

Outreach & Engagement

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/outreach/

Thank you for listening

Thanks to the SEB for their award of the Presidential Medal