At the start of my fellowship I was working towards getting a meta-analysis published that investigated the effects of six global changes on soil fauna communities. Whilst this manuscript is still not published, it is available on a pre-print server (DOI: 10.22541/au.167655684.49855023/v1). The dataset from this meta-analysis formed the backbone of WP1 from my MSCA proposal, which aimed to determine the effect of multiple global changes on soil fauna communities, and whether the impact is interactive (i.e. has an effect greater or lesser than expected based on the individual global changes) or additive ( i.e. has an impact as expected based on the individual global changes).
At the start of my fellowship I also conducted another literature review for WP1, in order to find more recently published papers that met the criteria of looking at the effects of multiple global changes on soil fauna to add to the previously discussed dataset. Following extraction of this data, I was then able to run the preliminary analysis. Although the scientific literature indicates that multiple global changes should have interactive effects on biodiversity, the preliminary analysis for WP1 was not conclusive – while the results showed no significant interaction between two global changes on soil fauna communities, the additive effect was not well supported either. Thus, in order to fully understand the mechanisms that could lead to such an inconclusive result, additional investigations were undertaken and new data extracted. The idea that is currently being tested is that the researchers, when testing the effects of multiple global changes, often do so in a way that is less “intense” than when testing the effect of a single global change. For example, by having shorter durations for their experiments, or lower treatment levels (e.g. the maximum amount of pesticide applied is less when applied with another global change treatment). Thus, the magnitude of the impacts is significantly reduced, and less pronounced, resulting in inconclusive results in a meta-analysis.
In terms of knowledge transfer, during my secondment, I organised a journal club and seminar series (at which I also presented my research), as well as a monthly Book Club focussed on removing barriers for under-represented groups in STEM subjects; I provided supervision and mentoring for early career researchers, including as a co-supervisor for a Bachelor’s Honours project. I was appointed Associate Editor of Journal of Animal Ecology. During the grant, I also applied as PI or co-PI to three grants, of which two were successful. I gave 9 lectures to Bachelor students, with elements of my research included in most. I presented my work at five national and international conferences (and attended an additional three conferences where I did not present). I undertook various training courses, including for increasing my computing and statistical knowledge, as well as science leadership skills. I was also actively involved in science outreach and communication, including publishing articles in newsletters relating to my research, co-hosting ‘soil painting’ days for teenagers, giving presentations to school children, and participating in a podcast on earthworms.
I have also been involved in a number of manuscripts that are connected with my line of research. I have been leading the assessment of five Canadian earthworm species, using the IUCN Regional Red List assessment. During the assessment the assessors, including myself, had to identify all the potential impacts that the species may be facing. Thus highlighting small-scale impacts of multiple global changes. I have two papers as senior authors that focus on the impacts of pollutants and pesticides on soil fauna community, which uses the same database as my own work. Interestingly, the meta-analysis of ones of the papers found that the use of multiple types of pesticides had the second largest impact on soil fauna communities.
