Does wave exposure determine the interactive effects of losing key grazers and ecosystem engineers?

The consequences of biodiversity loss in the face of environmental change remain difficult to predict, given the complexity of interactions among species and the context-dependency of their functional roles within ecosystems. Predictions may be enhanced by studies testing how the interactive effects of species loss from different functional groups vary with important environmental drivers. On rocky shores, limpets and barnacles are recognised as key grazers and ecosystem engineers, respectively. Despite the large body of research examining the combined effects of limpet and barnacle removal, it is unclear how their relative importance varies according to wave exposure, which is a dominant force structuring intertidal communities. We tested the responses of algal communities to the removal of limpets and barnacles on three sheltered and three wave-exposed rocky shores on the north coast of Ireland. Limpet removal resulted in a relative increase in microalgal biomass on a single sheltered shore only, but led to the enhanced accumulation of ephemeral macroalgae on two sheltered shores and one exposed shore. On average, independently of wave exposure or shore, ephemeral macroalgae increased in response to limpet removal, but only when barnacles were removed. On two sheltered shores and one exposed shore, however, barnacles facilitated the establishment of fucoid macroalgae following limpet removal. Therefore, at the scale of this study, variability among individual shores was more important than wave exposure per se in determining the effect of limpet removal and its interaction with that of barnacles. Overall, these findings demonstrate that the interactive effects of losing key species from different functional groups may not vary predictably according to dominant environmental factors.

Evaluation of creative problem solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary problem based learning

For a structural engineer, effective communication and interaction with architects cannot be underestimated as a key skill to success throughout their professional career. Structural engineers and architects have to share a common language and understanding of each other in order to achieve the most desirable architectural and structural designs. This interaction and engagement develops during their professional career but needs to be nurtured during their undergraduate studies. The objective of this paper is to present the strategies employed to engage higher order thinking in structural engineering students in order to help them solve complex problem-based learning (PBL) design scenarios presented by architecture students. The strategies employed were applied in the experimental setting of an undergraduate module in structural engineering at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK. The strategies employed were active learning to engage with content knowledge, the use of physical conceptual structural models to reinforce key concepts and finally, reinforcing the need for hand sketching of ideas to promote higher order problem-solving. The strategies employed were evaluated through student survey, student feedback and module facilitator (this author) reflection. The strategies were qualitatively perceived by the tutor and quantitatively evaluated by students in a cross-sectional study to help interaction with the architecture students, aid interdisciplinary learning and help students creatively solve problems (through higher order thinking). The students clearly enjoyed this module and in particular interacting with structural engineering tutors and students from another discipline