Speaker: Prof Sylvia Cremer, Institute of Science and Technology, Austria

Title: SOCIAL IMMUNITY: the colony-wide immune system of insect colonies

Abstract: Social insects fight disease together. They are protected against disease not only by their individual immunity, but also their collective and cooperative hygiene and sanitary care, providing social immunity to the colony. These colony-level disease defences show an amazingly similar organisation to the immune system of individual organisms. This is because insect colonies form “superorganisms”, where the individual insects – just like cells within a body – specialise on either reproduction (the queen resp. germline) or maintenance (the sterile workers resp. soma). The fitness of each individual is therefore strictly connected to the overall fitness of the colony, promoting unconditional cooperation between colony members. This resulted in the evolution of highly sophisticated colony disease defences, including hygienic suicide by social apoptosis and altruistic ‘find me and eat me’ signalling of infected individuals.

Speaker: Prof Ed Turner, Dept of Zoology, University of Cambridge
NB This talk is at the earlier time of 12.30

Title: Managing ecosystems for insect biodiversity

Abstract: There is mounting evidence that insects are in decline in some parts of the world, with consequences for myriad ecosystem processes that they support. In this talk, Ed will discuss some of the work the Insect Ecology Group has been involved with to catalogue and assess drivers behind insect declines, and to implement and test strategies to make human-modified systems more favourable for insects.

Speaker: Dr Karina Lucas Da Silva Brandao, Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels

Title: What we (un)know about Neotropical montane species of butterflies

Abstract: A third of all terrestrial species on Earth are found in mountain habitats, which are hotspots for biodiversity mainly because of topographic variety, soil type heterogeneity, altitudinal gradients, and climatic variability. The great level of specialisation that montane organisms frequently display within limited temperature ranges is demonstrated by invertebrate montane species. Furthermore, it is anticipated that upslope migrations will reduce their possible area of occupancy and make them more susceptible to the stochastic extinctions that are typical of small populations. Climate change is a potential danger to the survival of these species that inhabit mountainous regions. This is especially true for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, which has a high level of biodiversity but is now losing just 12% of its original vegetation due to habitat fragmentation brought on by urbanisation and human activity. 

Actinote butterflies (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae, Acraeini) compose a small genus which has a highly distinctive wing pattern. The hindwing of every species has the similar striped pattern, yet different mimicry groups may be distinguished by colours and tones. Numerous Actinote species can be found in the mountains of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, which is situated between 15° and 30° South and is primarily covered by tropical or subtropical forests. The climate varies in the interior (semi-deciduous forests with physiological drought and low mean temperature) to the interior (ombrophilous dense forests), which have no dry season. Montane speciation has been envisioned as a mechanism occurring through the evolution of the genus in this region.

In order to find a broad pattern of evolutionary mechanisms on these environments, we examined the population genomics patterns of two Actinote closely related highland species. Rather, we uncovered two disparate historical trends. Despite having a short, overlapping distribution that is thought to be connected to a chilly, humid environment, both butterfly species exhibit notable ecological differentiation: whereas one of them is found in wet forests above 1200 meters, has a slightly wider range, and feeds exclusively on one species of asteraceous vine, the other is found mostly above 1400 meters, prefers wet forests and contact zones with high altitude grasslands, and feeds on a few species of closely related shrubs. Despite the fact that both species exhibit a higher number of SNPs flagged for the LGM climate and it is thought likely that they expanded their range during cold and wet periods, the ecological specialisation indicates that the two species' detailed responses have likely differed and may have followed local microclimates, vegetation responses, or host plant responses. More in-depth conclusions are difficult since, of the hundreds of SNPs known for these species, only a very small number appear to be linked to climate.

Speaker: Prof Miles Lamare, University of Otago

Title: Echinoderms in a changing ocean

Abstract: Echinoderms (such as sea stars and sea urchins) are a marine phylum that play an important ecological role in many ocean habitats.  They are also a group that have been well studied in determining responses of marine species to important changes in the ocean such altered ocean productivity, acidification and warming.  In this talk, I discuss what we have learnt from the group in terms of developmental, life-history and population responses to environmental change.  This includes research on echinoderms in tropical reef CO2 vents in Papua New Guinea, temperate ecosystems and polar regions, as well as long-term inter-generation laboratory experiments.  I discuss broader questions around the ability of the group to adapt through physiological plasticity and inter-generational adaption.  Lastly, I briefly discuss research we are currently undertaken as part of my visit to Cambridge and the Natural History Museum (London).
 

Speaker: Dr Sam Reynolds, Dept of Zoology, University of Cambridge

Title: Using AI to understand what works in conservation and other stories

Abstract: I know, AI. Another person talking about AI. Everyone is mad about AI, but should they be? Surely using AI, the infamous ‘black box’ (not like in an aeroplane, because those famously tell you everything that was going on quite clearly, but more in a ‘I can’t see what’s going on in here!’ sense), undermines the scientific pillars of reproducibility and explainability? For this seminar, all AI apathy is to be deposited in the box by the door.

I plan to talk about a few things: Firstly, the implications of AI in conservation, based on the findings of an AI horizon scan I conducted; Secondly, an insight into an exciting collaborative project with the Department of Computer Science on how we are using large language models in the Conservation Evidence group to find evidence of conservation actions; and lastly, how the publication of ever larger numbers of convincing-fictitious academic papers represents an existential crisis for evidence synthesis, for which it is currently woefully unprepared. Do we have an answer?

30 January

24 October