The effects of sympatry on patterns of bill morphology between closely related species of birds, worldwide

When closely related species co-occur in sympatry, they face a significant challenge. They must adapt to the same local conditions in their shared environment, which favours the convergent evolution of traits, while simultaneously minimizing the costs of competition for shared resources that typically favours the divergent evolution of traits. Here, we use a comparative sister lineage approach to test how most species have responded to these conflicting selection pressures in sympatry, focusing on a key ecological trait: the bill morphology of birds. If similar bill morphologies incur fitness costs due to species interactions, then we predicted that the bill morphologies of closely related species would differ more in sympatry compared with allopatry. Alternatively, if similar bill morphologies incur fitness benefits due to local adaptation, then we predicted that the bill morphologies would be more similar in sympatry compared with allopatry. We used museum specimens to measure five aspects of bill (maxilla) morphology – depth, length, width, side shape, and bottom shape – in diverse bird species from around the world to test our alternative hypotheses. We found support for both divergent evolution and convergent evolution (or trait retention) in one ecological trait: closely related sympatric species diverged in bill depth, but converged in side shape. These patterns of bill evolution were influenced by the genetic distance between closely related sister taxa and the geographic distance between allopatric lineages. Overall, our results highlight species interactions as an important mechanism for the evolution of some (bill depth), but not all (bill shape), aspects of bill morphology in closely related species in sympatry, and provide strong support for the bill as a key ecological trait that can adapt in different ways to the conflicting challenges of sympatry.

An exploration of students’ perceptions and attitudes towards creativity in engineering education

This study used a mixed methods approach to develop a broad and deep understanding of students’ perceptions towards creativity in engineering education. Studies have shown that students’ attitudes can have an impact on their motivation to engage in creative behavior. Using an ex-post facto independent factorial design, attitudes of value towards creativity, time for creativity, and creativity stereotypes were measured and compared across gender, year of study, engineering discipline, preference for open-ended problem solving, and confidence in creative abilities. Participants were undergraduate engineering students at Queen’s University from all years of study. A qualitative phenomenological methodology was adopted to study students’ understandings and experiences with engineering creativity. Eleven students participated in oneon- one interviews that provided depth and insight into how students experience and define engineering creativity, and the survey included open-ended items developed using the 10 Maxims of Creativity in Education as a guiding framework. The findings from the survey suggested that students had high value for creativity, however students in fourth year or higher had less value than those in other years. Those with preference for open-ended problem solving and high confidence valued creative more than their counterparts. Students who preferred open-ended problem solving and students with high confidence reported that time was less of a hindrance to their creativity. Males identified more with creativity stereotypes than females, however overall they were both low. Open-ended survey and interview results indicated that students felt they experienced creativity in engineering design activities. Engineering creativity definitions had two elements: creative action and creative characteristic. Creative actions were associated with designing, and creative characteristics were predominantly associated with novelty. Other barriers that emerged from the qualitative analysis were lack of opportunity, lack of assessment, and discomfort with creativity. It was concluded that a universal definition is required to establish clear and aligned understandings of engineering creativity. Instructors may want to consider demonstrating value by assessing creativity and establishing clear criteria in design projects. It is recommended that students be given more opportunities for practice through design activities and that they be introduced to design and creative thinking concepts early in their engineering education.