Research fellow position: ecologist / evolutionary biologist

  • Level A, research-only academic
  • $68,040 – $92,343 pa (plus 9.5% employer superannuation)
  • Full-time, starting early 2020
  • One year, fixed term with the possibility of extension to a second year
  • Monash University Clayton campus

Professor Dustin Marshall is seeking an experienced ecologist / evolutionary biologist, who specialises in microalgal biology with a strong empirical background, to explore the ways in which size affects the structure and function of marine phytoplankton. This position will be with the Centre for Geometric Biology within the School of Biological Sciences at Monash University.

As the successful candidate, you will be expected to maintain the Centre’s evolved lines of the microalgae Dunaliella and use these evolved microalgae to undertake experiments that test ecological and evolutionary theories. You will also have a strong quantitative background and have a demonstrated track record in producing high-quality publications.

Key selection criteria

  1. A doctoral qualification in empirical ecology / evolutionary biology using microalgae as a model species.
  2. Demonstrated analytical and manuscript preparation skills; including an excellent track record of refereed research publications in high impact journals.
  3. Demonstrated experience in empirical research using cutting-edge quantitative approaches.
  4. Strong leadership, organisational and project management skills.
  5. Ability to work collaboratively with others

Enquiries to Professor Dustin Marshall on +61 3 9902 4449

For more information, or to apply, refer to the Monash University website

Everybody loves good neighbours, but what makes a good neighbour?

Animals and plants compete for resources and traditionally we have held the view that competition drives interactions between species relying on the same resources. But Hayley Cameron and Dustin Marshall have shown it is not all about competition. Previously, we described Hayley’s PhD work where she demonstrated that large individuals did not outcompete their smaller neighbours, but instead facilitated their access to resources. But is that still true when the neighbours are a different species?

Hayley and Dustin have now looked at this in more detail. Collaborating with Tim Coulson from the University of Oxford, they varied the size and number of one species to see if it would affect the survival, growth and reproduction of a second species. They wanted to know how populations are affected when the size and numbers of neighbours vary.

The team used two common, filter-feeding, marine invertebrates shown to compete for food, space and oxygen. Watersipora is an ‘encrusting’ species that grows across surfaces, often growing over other organisms. Bugula has a ‘tree-like’ growth form and can efficiently harvest food and oxygen.

Both species are colonial invertebrates, made up of individual zooids. Watersipora and Bugula colonies were trimmed, creating a range of sizes and then a single Watersipora colony was placed on a small PVC plate and surrounded by different numbers of Bugula colonies. In total, they had 240 small plates hanging in Port Phillip Bay for 8 weeks.

Hayley, Tim and Dustin were interested in the consequences for populations when species of different sizes interact. So, they used a particular type of mathematical model called an Integral Projection Model. They entered data on survival, growth and reproduction of Watersipora for each size and number of Bugula neighbours. The model calculated the population growth rate for Watersipora with different neighbour combinations.

They found population growth of Watersipora was greatest when there were many, small Bugula neighbours. Large Bugula in the neighbourhood meant slow population growth of Watersipora; the species’ competed for resources and the more, large Bugulathere were, the greater the competition.

We know Bugula disrupts water flow and affects the delivery of food and oxygen to Watersipora. It seems, many small Buguladisrupt water flow and more food and oxygen reach the Watersipora. But while large Bugula also slow water flow, they consume more resources leaving a net negative effect on Watersipora.

So, both size and density played a part in determining whether a neighbour facilitated or competed with a target species. This means different population size structures will yield different outcomes in terms of species interactions. Hayley, Tim and Dustin emphasise that size should be included in studies of competition as any conclusions about how two species interact will depend on the size and density of the proposed competitor.

What is particularly exciting about these results is that the team may have uncovered an alternative pathway through which species using the same resources can co-exist. If body size mediates a switch between facilitation and competition then co-existence is more possible than previously simple experiments would imply.

This research was published in the journal Ecology Letters.

Powering ocean giants: the energetics of shark and ray megafauna

Authors: Christopher L Lawson, Lewis G Halsey, Graeme C Hays, Christine L Dudgeon, Nicholas L Payne, Michael B Bennett, Craig R White, and Anthony J Richardson

Published in: Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Highlights

Energetics studies have illuminated how animals partition energy among essential life processes and survive in extreme environments or with unusual lifestyles. There are few bioenergetics measurements for elasmobranch megafauna; the heaviest elasmobranch for which metabolic rate has been measured is only 47.7 kg, despite many weighing >1000 kg.

Bioenergetics models of elasmobranch megafauna would answer fundamental ecological questions surrounding this important and vulnerable group, and enable an understanding of how they may respond to changing environmental conditions, such as ocean warming and deoxygenation.

Larger chambers and swim-tunnels have allowed measurements of the metabolism of incrementally larger sharks and rays, but laboratory systems are unlikely to be suitable for the largest species.

Novel uses of biologging and collaboration with commercial aquaria may enable energetics of the largest sharks and rays to be measured.

Innovative use of technology and models derived from disparate disciplines, from physics to artificial intelligence, can improve our understanding of energy use in this group.

Shark and ray megafauna have crucial roles as top predators in many marine ecosystems, but are currently among the most threatened vertebrates and, based on historical extinctions, may be highly susceptible to future environmental perturbations. However, our understanding of their energetics lags behind that of other taxa. Such knowledge is required to answer important ecological questions and predict their responses to ocean warming, which may be limited by expanding ocean deoxygenation and declining prey availability. To develop bioenergetics models for shark and ray megafauna, incremental improvements in respirometry systems are useful but unlikely to accommodate the largest species. Advances in biologging tools and modelling could help answer the most pressing ecological questions about these iconic species.

Lawson CL, Halsey LG, Hays GC, Dudgeon CL, Payne NL, Bennett MB, White CR, Richardson AJ (2019) Powering ocean giants: the energetics of shark and ray megafauna. Trends in Ecology & Evolution PDF DOI

Mirth recognised with Crozier medal

The Centre for Geometric Biology’s Christen Mirth has been recognised for her research on how nutrition shapes development, having been awarded the Ross Crozier medal by the Genetics Society of Australasia.

When Christen first began working on this problem in 2003, using the fruit fly Drosophila melangoster as a model, researchers knew that nutrition had a role in the secretion of insulin-like peptides. These peptides, in turn, influenced the rates of body growth.  What they didn’t know, was what made insects stop growing.

During her postdoc, Christen and her colleagues discovered there was another hormone involved in regulating when growth should stop: ecdysone, the steroid that controls moulting in insects. It turned out that nutritional changes can control the timing of a critical pulse of ecdysone, which commits an insect to metamorphosis. In other words, ecdysone was the key they had been looking for, determining the developmental rate and the final size of the insect.

What’s more, the team found certain organs, such as the wings and the ovaries, require this ecdysone pulse for cells to acquire organ-specific identities and to grow. Organs also change the way they respond to nutritional cues with time by changing the combination of hormones required for growth, providing a further buffer against nutritional environments determining organ size. Such differences in the way organs respond to nutrition (and the associated hormone releases) are important as they allow for variation in animal shape and ensure that correct organ function is maintained in different nutritional conditions.

Christen has gone on to investigate other hormones and, in collaboration with colleague Associate Professor Alexander Shingleton of the University of Illinois, has found another developmental hormone that regulates body size but not developmental timing. This ‘juvenile hormone’ reduces insulin signalling and increases the concentration of ecdysone without altering the timing of ecdysone pulses.

Now as leader of the Mirth Lab, Christen emphasises how the group’s work provides a theory for the way nutrition might influence the growth of other animals. Nutrition may act as a stimulus, modifying insulin signalling and the synthesis of key developmental hormones like sex steroids in mammals.

The Ross Crozier medal was established by the Genetics Society of Australasia to recognise outstanding contributions to the field of genetics research by mid-career Australasian scientists. It has been awarded annually since 2011. The medal commemorates celebrated Australian evolutionary geneticist Ross Crozier (1943–2009).

The benefits of big neighbours

Larger offspring typically have higher survival, growth and reproduction than smaller offspring. So why then, do we see such a range in offspring size? PhD student Hayley Cameron tackles this conundrum and the results of her latest experimental study contradict accepted theoretical models by showing that bigger is not always better.

Classic life-history models assume a trade-off in the investment mothers make in the next generation; large offspring perform better but smaller offspring are ‘cheaper’ to make and so mothers make them in large numbers. These models predict that a single offspring size will maximise reproductive success in a particular environment. But, we don’t see single offspring sizes, we see a range of sizes.

Game-theory takes the models further and explains the variation in offspring size by generating a ‘competition-colonisation’ trade-off.  In these scenarios, larger offspring will win contests over smaller offspring, but smaller offspring are better able to colonise unoccupied areas because they are more abundant. This means, no single offspring size will maximise reproductive success for any given population and so variation in offspring size is maintained.

Hayley and her supervisor Dustin Marshall test the idea that larger offspring will out-compete smaller offspring in a well-studied model organism, the invertebrate Bugula neritina. This idea has received surprisingly little testing.

To do this Hayley collected larvae and measured each one before settling them on to acetate squares. She glued these acetate squares, with their newly settled offspring, onto PVC plates in pairs of different sizes. These plates were deployed at a field site and every week Hayley measured survival, growth and number of developing larvae for 336 individuals of known offspring size.

To their surprise Hayley and Dustin found, instead of being out-competed as predicted, small offspring received benefits from having larger offspring as neighbours. Large offspring did compete with large neighbours though, and these bigger offspring did best on their own.

The graph and table both show how reproduction (measured by the number of ovicells) in big and small Bugula changed depending on the size of its neighbour. Hayley found that when small Bugula were paired with big neighbours then the overall reproductive output of the small Bugula increased. In contrast, big Bugula did best with no neighbours at all.

Why did this happen? In this study, larger offspring grew into larger colonies and Hayley and Dustin think these larger colonies disrupt the flow which affects the supply of resources (food and oxygen) available to their neighbours.  A slower flow is likely to benefit smaller colonies which tend to be less efficient at capturing resources in high flows. Conversely, larger, more efficient, colonies may deplete the resources available for their large neighbours.

So, while life history theory has traditionally viewed offspring interactions through the lens of competition, Hayley’s PhD work suggests facilitation might also be important in maintaining variation in offspring size.

More of Hayley’s PhD work on variation in offspring size: Should mothers provision their offspring equally? A manipulative field test

This research is published in the journal Evolution.

Celebrating 500 generations of experimental evolution

It’s party time in the Centre for Geometric Biology: We’ve reached 500 generations of experimental evolution in our large and small algal cells!

Three and a half years ago Martino Malerba set up the first culture of the single-celled marine phytoplankton Dunaliella tertiolecta and begun to artificially select for large and small cells.  The selection process of separating the largest and the smallest cells has continued twice a week ever since.  Martino is now the proud ‘father’ of algal cells where the big cells are more than 10 times the size of the smaller cells.

The evolved algae lines have enabled Martino and his colleagues to look at the consequences of being a particular size without having to compare different species, which vary in many other ways than just size. This research directly supports the fundamental question the Centre for Geometric Biology seeks to understand “why do organisms grow to the size they do?”

The team has looked at the effects of size at both the level of the cell and the population. They have found that altering the size of a cell profoundly alters many fundamental traits of algal physiology and ecology. This affects how cells of different sizes will cope with fluctuating resources and, in turn, how those populations of cells use energy and grow.

Exciting research underway looks at community-level effects. What happens when grazers are only offered either large or small algal cells: does changing algal size have repercussions up the food chain?

Understanding how individuals grow and regulate their energy is critical in helping scientists predict how large-scale impacts, such as climate change, affect organisms.

Phytoplankton have critical roles in the ocean; they form the base of most food webs and fix large amounts of carbon.  So, while the research stemming from these artificially evolved algal cells is theoretically interesting, it also has a very direct and immediate application to how we understand and manage climate change.

Estimating the effects of marine urbanization on coastal food webs

Marine urbanization is a term that describes the increasing proliferation of structures such as piers, jetties, marinas, sea walls and other coastal defences in the marine environment. Martino Malerba, Craig White and Dustin Marshall from the Centre for Geometric Biology are proposing that this type of urban spread into the ocean could rob local systems of some of their productivity, changing local food web structure as well as function.

Many artificial structures, including floating platforms, barges, piers, pontoons seawalls and port quays, decrease the access of direct sunlight into the water. This means that instead of ecological communities dominated by ‘energy-producing’ seaweeds that require light to photosynthesise, there tends to be a shift toward dense assemblages of ‘energy-consuming’ filter-feeding invertebrates. The research team are particularly interested in finding out how this additional filter-feeding biomass affects energy flow and the productivity of coastal food webs.

The sheltered and shaded nature of marine urbanization disproportionately favours the development of dense fouling invertebrate communities. Examples of marine artificial structures in Australia: (left panel) mussels in the port of Hobart, (right top) mixed fouling communities in Port Phillip Bay, and (right bottom) colonies of mussels and polychaetes in Brighton (Melbourne).

Martino and his colleagues have combined data from field surveys, laboratory studies and satellite data to analyse total energy usage of invertebrate communities on artificial structures in Port Phillip and Moreton Bays. The team then used estimates from other studies to estimate the amount of primary production required to support the metabolic demands of the entire filter-feeding biomass living on artificial structures of all main commercial ports worldwide: the ‘trophic footprint’.

In order to do this, Martino and colleagues first used satellite photos to estimate how much area available for colonisation is created by artificial structures in Port Phillip and Moreton Bays. They then used field surveys to estimate the total invertebrate biomass occurring on all artificial structures in the two bays. In Port Phillip Bay, the estimated biomass on artificial structures is the equivalent of 3,151 female African bush elephants.

The next step was to transport communities back to the laboratory to measure mean daily energy consumption per unit area and then scale this up to artificial structures within the whole bay.  Based on their estimates they found that biomass on artificial structures can consume between 0.005% and 0.05% of the total yearly energy production in Port Phillip Bay and Morton Bay respectively.  This means that each square metre of artificial structure will consume 6 to 20 m² of marine primary productivity in these bays.

When they went through essentially the same process using data available from the scientific literature, the team found, on average, each metre of port consumes 26 m²of ocean primary productivity.  But there are stark differences between ports in different parts of the world. For example, one square metre of artificial structure in cold, highly productive regions can require as little as 0.9 m² of ocean (e.g. St. Petersburg, Russia), whereas a square metre of artificial structure in the nutrient-poor tropical waters of Hawaii can deplete all of the productivity in the surrounding ~120 m².

Distribution of all major commercial ports worldwide, with associated area of underwater artificial structures (size of grey dot) and trophic footprint (size of red border). Trophic footprints indicate how much ocean surface is required to supply the energy demand of the sessile fouling community growing on all artificial structures of the port, averaged over the year. Trophic footprints depend on local conditions of ocean primary productivity and temperature. Ports located in cold, nutrient-rich waters (dark blue) will have a lower footprint than ports in warm, oligotrophic waters (light blue).

Martino, Craig and Dustin point out that a large percentage of ocean shoreline is now modified by engineering, with associated impacts on primary production. Burgeoning coastal human populations are expected to increase demands on fisheries in the future and food web productivity is already forecasted to decrease, due to the effects of climate change. Understanding the impacts of marine urbanisation on food webs is becoming increasingly important so that design of artificial structures minimises impacts on food webs and remediation efforts can be undertaken if necessary.

This research is published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.