The Stag Beetle – Lucanus cervus – is the UK’s largest beetle. Males can be up to 75 mm long, including their impressive antler-like mandibles which they use to battle each other for access to females during breeding season. It is a truly beautiful species, inspiring amazement in all who are lucky enough to see one. Sadly, evidence from Europe suggests that stag beetle populations are declining across much of their range. But how are they faring in the UK? The south of England was historically recognised as a hotspot for the species. Is it still? A team of researchers from the People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES), the Natural History Museum (NHM) and the University of Cambridge set out to find an answer. Distribution records of stag beetles from 1998 to 2022 were analysed and compared with historic museum records going back over a century. The core range was found to have changed little overall, but has declined in the south west of England. Counts of adult beetles recorded together, although not systematic, indicate a worrying decline in abundance across the range. Phenology was also investigated. This webinar will share the findings from this research project, and discuss what can be done to ensure the long-term survival of this charismatic species.
Q&A with David Wembridge
David Wembridge is Conservation Research and Strategy Officer at People’s Trust for Endangered Species. He leads the long-running Great Stag Hunt survey, which has collected records of stag beetles in the UK for over 25 years.
1. How can you differentiate the Lesser Stag Beetle from the female Greater Stag Beetle?
It can be a tricky one when you’re starting out, but once you’ve seen both it’s hard to confuse them. The easiest distinguishing feature is size; Lesser Stag Beetles are typically less than 3 cm in length whereas female Greater Stag Beetles are longer than 3 cm. As a confirmatory character, the Lesser Stag Beetle is matt black in colour, whereas Greater Stag Beetles have a lovely chestnut-red sheen to their elytra. Finally, as a more technical character, the two species also differ in the number of spurs on the middle and hind legs.
2. If you accidentally dig up a stag beetle grub, should you rebury it?
Short answer: yes! Ideally just return it to where you found it. Otherwise, if you cannot return the grub to the same location, it’s fine to move it to another area of soil, provided there’s some rotting wood in the soil for it to eat. In fact, if you look, you may well discover a piece of rotting wood in the soil around which you found the grub, in which case you should move this piece of wood with the larva when you relocate it. It can also help to bury the grub down into the soil a little bit (a few inches should do it). Stag beetle larvae are generally quite hardy creatures and can tolerate a bit of manhandling by the occasional gardener.
3. What sort of soils do you find stag beetles in?
Greater Stag Beetles tend not to be found in areas with chalky soils or heavy clay soils that can be easily waterlogged. That is because they need soil which they can easily burrow through. Most other soil types besides chalk or heavy clay seem to be generally acceptable. Soil-type is likely to be one of the key factors shaping their distribution in southern Britain.
4. Does the Lesser Stag Beetle also need research and conservation attention?
I don’t think we know all that much about the Lesser Stag Beetle, especially regarding population change. From a distribution perspective, though, the Lesser is certainly much more ubiquitous across the British Isles than the Greater, which suggests it’s doing relatively okay. Please continue submitting records of any Lesser Stag Beetles you find and it may be possible one day to do a similar analysis for the Lesser Stag Beetle as we’ve done for the Greater Stag Beetle.
5. How useful are hibernacula for the conservation of Greater Stag Beetles?
Interesting question. Whilst we encourage people to create deadwood habitats – log piles or ‘pyramids’ – we don’t know how readily or to what extent Stag Beetles use them. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to imagine hibernaculae and other features as being bad for invertebrates. Even if they’re not frequently used by Greater Stag Beetles specifically, they’ll certainly be other invertebrates that benefit from them. So – build away!
Literature References
Wembridge et al. (2026) ‘Long‐term population changes for the UK stag beetle Lucanus cervus—Evidence from citizen science surveys and museum collections’: https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.70022
entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!
entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.
The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:
Learn how to plan, analyse, and report high-quality bird surveys using sound monitoring in this ecoTECH webinar with Wilder Sensing.
Bioacoustic monitoring is becoming an indispensable tool for bird surveyors, ecologists, and conservation professionals – but how do you ensure you’re using it to its full potential? This blog will guide you through best practices for planning, running, and analysing bird surveys with bioacoustics, with a focus on high standards and practical application.
We’ll explore:
What bioacoustic methods are – in a nutshell, what is bioacoustic (or, passive acoustic) monitoring and how does it compare to conventional methods?
Considerations when designing your bioacoustic survey – Highlighting the things that you need to consider and justify before deploying your recorders.
Practical advice on deploying recorders – how to choose what model of recorder you need, how to position them within habitats and in relation to one another, and how to optimise your fieldwork while still keeping the recorders discrete.
Choosing the right recording settings – explaining how to adjust your settings to maximise data quality whilst reducing data volume.
Planning for analysis and storage – raising awareness of how vast biacoustic datasets can be. Have a plan for analysis, storage, and reporting!
Understanding analysis and storage software solutions – highlighting what a good software platform needs to deliver for effective bioacoustic surveys.
Geoff Carss is the founder and CEO of Wilder Sensing and Ethos Wilder. Growing up in Botswana and Northumberland he really enjoyed getting close to nature.
After obtaining multiple degrees in Geology, Geoff started a successful career as a Technologist, Entrepreneur and Environmental Advocate. He also served on the Board of Directors in a number of technology startups, and as trustee for the Bristol Avon Rivers Trust.
After observing the continued decline of biodiversity in the UK and around the world, Geoff started the Wilder Sensing project in order to bring the latest technologies to the environmental debate. His vision is to enable a more evidence based approach to addressing our environmental challenges.
James Bell
James has a BSc(Hons) in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and a MSc in Applied Wildlife Conservation from the University of the West of England. During his studies, James developed a keen interest in emerging technical solutions to both the climate and biodiversity crises. Outside of his studies, James has long since loved birds and is rarely too far from a pair of binoculars. Bringing together cool tech and birds, Wildersensing was a perfect fit for James who joined in April 2025.
As part of the team, James helps to get new users set up with the software, as well as provide ongoing support to customers. James also works closely with the technical team to help feedback user experiences to continually improve our platform.
Q&A with Geoff and James
1. When spacing out recorders, do you need to consider how wind might affect the sound carry distance?
James: Yes. Whilst passive acoustic recorders typically only capture sound events within 50 metres, the general recommendation is to position your recorders at least 100 metres apart. This is to prevent double counting a single sound event in exceptional circumstances, such as sound being carried beyond 50 meters by wind, etc.. Additionally, it is also a good idea to avoid positioning recorders in exposed areas where there’s often strong, blustering wind (for example, exposed moorland). You will still get a few detections from recorders in such settings, but there will also be many calls drowned out by the wind which you’ll miss. Opt for a sheltered location, if at all possible.
2. Would positioning a recorder low to the ground lead to a reduction in audio quality?
James: It doesn’t lead to a reduction in audio quality, but it does decrease the detection likelihood for species. Having it positioned higher off the ground – e.g. at our recommended height of 1.5 metres – strikes a good balance between logistical ease and detection.
3. In the presentation, James mentioned that bioacoustics monitoring is not appropriate for all species. What species is it not appropriate for?
Geoff: Those which don’t vocalise very much! Or, in other words, species which are easier to see than to hear. Another consideration is that bioacoustic recorders are fixed point devices – they only record in a specific spot. If you’re surveying a large area for a species which may only use small patches, and have limited budget for bioacoustic recorders, a traditional moving transect survey may be more appropriate.
4. Is it possible to scan through sonogram datasets on BirdNET to quickly to isolate and identify unusual calls?
James: Yes. After running your data through Wilder Sensing, you can look at the species list generated and then interrogate in more detail the interesting and unusual species. Within the Wilder Sensing platform, you can go to the specific section/s of the sonogram which the machine learning algorithm tagged as representing that species. This human validation step is essential for unusual records.
Geoff: As an example of this, on Countryfile one customer shared their story of interrogating an audio file in which the tags went ‘Lapwing, Lapwing, Lapwing, Lapwing, Lapwing, Peregrine Falcon’ and then silence! Going beyond the simple species list, then, the customer was able to pull out a behaviour (Lapwings going silent when a Peregrine Falcon enters the area) and validate the presence of both species as correct.
5. Is it possible to report misidentifications back to BirdNET in order to improve the accuracy of the identification system?
James: We work closely with Cornell University, who manage the machine learning algorithm behind BirdNET. When reporting such instances, we can isolate correctly identified high quality clips for each species which Cornell can then feed back into the training algorithm. As an example, in the past, many users reported having a certain phrase in a Robin’s call misidentified as a Hawfinch. By reporting this back to Cornell, they were able to iteratively improve the algorithm such that this misidentification has now stopped happening as often.
6. Can you analyse the Doppler shift in frequency of bird calls to triangulate the flightline heights of passing calling birds?
James: This is a super interesting and complex topic. The short answer right now is no.
Geoff: We did some related work at Wendling Beck in Norfolk looking at tracking the direction of migratory bird flocks using multiple microphones stationed apart from one another. This works fairly well in principle – you first pick up calls on microphone 1, then, say, 10 seconds later on microphone 2 which is 100 meters away, then on microphone 3 and so on. That just looks at direction of movement though, not flightline height. I’ve also been involved in work using clusters of synchronised microphones to estimate the direction and distance of bird calls, focusing on skylarks specifically. Again, this worked in theory, but it is too complex to be commercially viable yet.
7. When deploying bioacoustic recorders in public areas there is presumably a risk of recording conversation between members of the public. Is this an issue for data protection laws?
Geoff: The passive recorders just record – they don’t analyse. Furthermore, once uploaded to our website, we don’t analyse the audio files for human sounds. There are, however, some conversations which are unavoidably accidentally recorded, and even if not analysed, these do end up in data storage. For customers who are especially scrupulous about complying with GDPR, we recommend deleting the files from storage once they’ve been analysed and interrogated. But that does of course mean the files can’t be re-analysed in the future. It’s a trade-off.
8. Do you do recorders for bats as well?
Geoff: To clarify, Wilder Sensing do not create or sell audio recording devices – we sell a software platform which works with audio recording devices to analyse the audio files and harvest ecological data from them. We work with various companies that sell audio recording devices – Wildlife Acoustics, AudioMoth, Frontier Technology, for example. And whilst we’ve spoken exclusively about birds today, we do also provide analysis software for bats. It’s a totally different context for bats with different considerations, though. If you’re interested in this I suggest getting in contact with us directly at info@wildersensing.ac.uk.
9. How long would it take to process one hour of audio data using BirdNET?
Geoff: We’ve recently completely re-written how Wilder Sensing behaves from a processing perspective. We’re now able to utilise ‘virtual machines’ to cope with increased demand – we get 50,000–100,000 files a day through the system some days! Thanks to this, processing times are way down. It now takes about 30 seconds to analyse a file with one hour’s worth of audio. So, large datasets are now generally processed in a few hours. Processing time is also more or less the same irrespective of whether or not are ‘interesting’ species detected.
10. How do you see this technology developing in the next 3–5 years?
James: I would anticipate that as global sound libraries become larger and more training data are made available, models will likely develop in two major ways: (1) improvements in global coverage and performance; and, (2) the capacity to identify call types rather than just species. Right now, for instance, models perform best in North America and Western Europe because that’s where the largest training datasets have been made available. Models tend to not perform as well elsewhere where training datasets are smaller. As global sound libraries get larger, species coverage and model precision will likely improve. Similarly, as training datasets become larger, it introduces the potential for labelling and training on specific call types – e.g., flight calls, alarm calls, fledgling begging, etc.. This could open up fascinating insights on behaviours and site use.
11. What projects and partners do you see Wilder Sensing working with over the coming years?
Geoff: When we started Wilder Sensing three years ago, our main partners were large organisations like the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB, and the Wildfowls and Wetlands Trust. Over the past two years we’ve seen a huge increase in demand from a diverse mixture of other partners – regenerative farming ventures, solar farm developments, water companies, etc. – who are really interested in looking at cost-effective ways of monitoring wildlife on the sites they are responsible for. We also have a large number of professional ecological consultancy firms using our platform to complement their site-based survey methodologies. Hopefully this diverse mixture of partners will continue into the future!
In one of the largest surveys of a UK marine protected area (MPA) ever conducted, Owen Exeter and his team of marine scientists deployed 280 baited underwater camera systems across the Isles of Scilly archipelago, a unique biodiversity hotspot in the northeast Atlantic. The cameras recorded thriving communities of sharks, fish, and crustaceans across habitats ranging from seagrass beds and kelp forests, taking viewers beneath the waves and offering a rare insight into some of the UK’s healthiest and wildest seas. Beyond documenting marine life, the data provide a practical blueprint for designing innovative marine monitoring programmes, helping to ensure conservation efforts are both evidence-based and effective.
Q&A with Dr Owen Exeter
Dr Owen Exeter is a marine conservation researcher at the University of Exeter, specialising in fish and shark ecology in UK waters, West Africa, and the Middle East. His research uses satellite tracking and cutting-edge underwater camera technologies to improve the effectiveness of marine protected areas (MPAs), supporting evidence-based conservation by demonstrating how MPAs can benefit both people and wildlife.
1. Is there any bias caused by the choice of fish bait for use with the BRUVs?
Yes, certain marine species are more attracted to certain baits than others and are therefore more likely to be recorded at the video cameras. This bias is unavoidable. Because we were conscious of this, we elected to use the same bait – oily fish (mackerel) – at every surveying site, for consistency. This meant we were still able to make valid comparisons between sites, which was essential to the project’s goals.
2. What was your process for converting all the video footage into useful data?
People often ask if I used artificial intelligence for this – but I did not. I did it all manually! That’s partly because I thought it would be enjoyable, and partly because it would have been very difficult and time-consuming to train an AI model to do the conversion of video footage to data, particularly the species recognition element. Instead, I used a specialist software called Event Measure (from SeaGIS) specifically designed for the task. I manually watched through all the footage and, using the software, recorded the species present and counted the individuals. For the counts I used a technique called MaxN. For this you record the highest number of individuals present in a given frame. This is a conservative measure of abundance but it ensures you don’t ‘double-count’ individuals, which is very easy to do with underwater footage of schools of fish!
3. Have you investigated recording audio as well as video? Might there be any interesting insights to be gained from analysing the underwater soundscape?
Yes, actually! As a side project of my PhD we set-up cheap acoustic recorders called ‘HydroMoths’ alongside the GoPros to record sound as well as video. The main thing we were interested in investigating was noise pollution. The Isles of Scilly has a lot of boat traffic, especially in summer, and I speculated that this may have an adverse effect on marine fauna. Sadly, in the end, we ended up abandoning this arm of the research as we didn’t really have enough data to draw any interesting conclusions. When it comes to noise pollution some marine species seem to ‘habituate’ to noise. This really complicates things when it comes to assessing whether noise pollution has an impact or not. It would still definitely be possible to investigate this, but you’d need a lot more data. A whole PhD could be dedicated this research topic!
4. Over what time period was data collected?
The fieldwork for this project was carried out over two consecutive summers (starting in late spring and ending in early autumn). In an ideal world it would’ve been nice to survey during the winter too, but the Isles of Scilly are famously exposed and stormy during the winter, so getting BRUVs in the water (a) wouldn’t have been safe and (b) wouldn’t have gathered any useful footage due to turbulence. Even during the summer there were often days when conditions were too choppy and windy to be worth putting out the cameras. Fortunately, when conditions do clear up, the sea around the Isles of Scilly has some of the clearest water in Britain (because there’s no river inflow), so the footage can be excellent quality! To account for the fact that BRUVs were deployed in different locations on different days (and months) we included in our statistical model a control for year, and seasonality using temperature. Interestingly, we found that seasonality had minimal effect on the diversity or abundance of marine species detected. This is likely due to the Isles of Scilly having very stable sea temperatures throughout the year (due to the influence of pelagic water input), with sea surface temperatures only fluctuating a few degrees throughout our study period. Each BRUV is underwater for about 70-minutes and records footage for an hour, which is standardised. An hour may seem like surprisingly little time to record for, but research from scientists in Wales found that actually only around 45 minutes is needed in the UK for a BRUV to detect the majority of large marine species present in an area. We rounded up to be safe.
1. What would be your key recommendations to ensure Marine Protected Areas actually serve to protect the marine biodiversity within them?
Ultimately the protection of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is driven from the top level by central government policymakers. In order for MPAs to actually work, there has be a motivation at this level. In the UK there has been at least some progress in this regard. For example, last year there was a big government consultation about a number of MPAs in England focused on ensuring ongoing protection. Generally, however, progress has been slow. On the flip side, there are also things we can do as local managers, stakeholders and citizen scientists. My key recommendation here is to build up an evidence base for the sites you are working to protect – show how special and interesting they are. Then when it comes to consultation or management plans down the line, the evidence base is already there to show policymakers why the sites are worth protecting. Decision-making works top-down, but evidence-building and pressure-applying works bottom-up.
marineLIVE webinars feature guest marine biologists talking about their research into the various organisms that inhabit our seas and oceans, and the threats that they face. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for marine life is all that’s required!
Check out the British Ecological Society website for more information on membership, events, publications and special interest groups: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/
Antarctica’s terrestrial biodiversity is restricted to tiny islands of ice-free habitat surrounded by vast expanses of inhospitable ice or ocean. Today it is dominated by microarthropods and other microinvertebrates, although that has not always been the case. Antarctica’s largest invertebrates are two chironomid midges and a small number of freshwater crustaceans Evolution in isolation, long-term persistence and regionalisation typify this fauna. This has important implications for understanding the geological and glaciological history of the Antarctic region, and of the climatic and oceanographic processes influencing it. Antarctica’s terrestrial biodiversity now faces considerable challenges from growing human activity and impacts, including considerable regional climate change.
Q&A with Peter Convey
Peter Convey is a polar terrestrial ecologist with over 37 years experience working in both southern and northern polar regions. Originally an insect behavioural ecologist, he has very wide research interests relating to the polar regions, covering biodiversity and biogeography, adaptation, evolutionary history, climate and environmental change, conservation, human impacts and invasive species.
1. In the presentation you mentioned a biogeographic boundary in Antarctica called the ‘Gressitt line’. Antarctic species are seemingly never found on both sides of this line – it represents a hard division. However, with the additional pressure on Antarctica from humans, are we beginning to see any species cross the boundary?
This is a very interesting question. We have not seen any species cross the boundary yet. However, there is definitely potential for this to happen in the future. Something else I mentioned in the talk was the fairly recent realisation that Antarctica is not one uniformly connected biogeographic realm but rather a series of relatively discrete biogeographic regions. Many Antarctica species are not just endemic to Antarctica, therefore, but actually endemic to a specific smaller biogeographic region within Antarctica. Having realised this, it now becomes apparent that in addition to risks posed by the arrival of non-native species from outside of Antarctica into Antarctica, risk is also presented by the movement of species within Antarctica, from one biogeographic region to another. One potential example of such movement would be the movement of species across the Gressitt line. All of this has large operational repercussions for us as scientists working in Antarctica. Research operations often involve fieldwork spanning multiple biogeographic regions on the continent. We now need to be acutely aware of the ecological repercussions of such movement. Biosecurity measures will be needed not just upon arrival to Antarctica but also for long-distance travel internally within the continent.
2. What future biosecurity measures do you think will be needed to accommodate with increased pressure on Antarctica?
Contrary to what some might expect, the existing biosecurity measures on Antarctica for scientists are broadly quite simple. It is largely a matter of self-checking of clothing, equipment and cargo to make sure it’s all clean and hasn’t been contaminated with foreign soil, seeds, etc.. The difficulty is enforcing this. How do we make sure people are doing these checks to an acceptably thorough standard? Inevitably, some people are lazier than others with this sort of thing. One option is to shift responsibility away from individuals and towards specialist staff specifically employed to deal with biosecurity. Cruise ships are exemplary in this regard. They take biosecurity very seriously and have, for the last few years at least, employed some staff on the vessels for whom part of their role is specifically to conduct biosecurity examinations of cargo, equipment and tourists’ clothes and footwear. The ships also have very clear education on this issue for their passengers. Even when I’ve travelled on board cruise ships as a scientist I get checked just as thoroughly as the regular tourists. To answer the question then, I would be in favour for more strictly enforced checks across the board. Another element to the question concerns what type of foreign material you are controlling for. Right now the focus seems to be on controlling the introduction of foreign microbes. One of the most common biosecurity measures is the dipping of footwear in Vircon, a strong disinfectant, or an equivalent. Vircon kills microbes effectively, which is great, but it has also been shown not to work on insects (it was tested on Eretmoptera murphyi larvae, and they survived for 30 minutes!). I think the time is now to think about introducing insecticide control as part of biosecurity measures (for instance, some national operators already fumigate incoming cargo containers before arrival in Antarctica). We just need to be careful we choose an appropriate agent that actually kills the things we want to be targeting.
3. Do you find invertebrate fossils in Antarctica?
Yes – you do! That is because Antarctica didn’t always used to be just ice. Back in the Cretaceous period, for example, Antarctica was primarily forested. Just as with any other part of the world with such an ecosystem, there would have been abundant insects, some of which were fossilised. The difficulty with fossil studies in Antarctica, however, is finding the damn things! There’s two kilometres of ice over the vast majority of the continent today, making most of the geology (where fossils are found) totally inaccessible. Palaeontologists are therefore limited to search the ice-free areas, which are few and far between. We have however, found some fossils (including some invertebrates), and, circling back, it’s thanks to our finding these that we even know that Antarctica didn’t used to be all ice in the past. Fossil ferns, fossil freshwater fish, fossil freshwater invertebrates, and fossil flies have all been found, for example. These have been used to reconstruct how past environments used to look. It’s currently believed that at various points in the deep past Antarctica would have had extensive temperate rainforest and even subtropical rainforest. The bit that boggles my mind is that these developed in a region which exists in 24/7 darkness for part of the year!
4. Have any Antarctic species been introduced outside of Antarctica?
Not that I know of! But there have been species introduced within Antarctica (i.e. from one part of the continent to another). The classic example of that would be the midge Eretmoptera murphyi, which I discussed in the talk. One might assume that northwards migration of species out of Antarctica into the Southern Ocean islands, for example, would be unlikely, presuming Antarctic species to be too specially adapted to the Antarctic conditions to survive elsewhere. However, there have been some rather good molecular studies, particularly from Chilean scientists, showing that northwards migration of Antarctic species, at least in the marine context, is at least possible. Such migrations have occurred in the deep past at least, if not recently.
5. Have there been any instances of Antarctic ecosystems surviving mostly unfazed with the addition of a non-native species? Or do non-native species always cause havoc?
This is a very sensible question. In invasion biology it’s often useful to think about a ‘rule of 10s’. Say you look at a certain part of the world and identify 100 species which could potentially get there. Of those, as per the laws of invasion biology, around 10 of those are likely to establish. And when we say establish we mean the species lands, it grows, it survives, and that’s it – it stays in one spot. We might call such species persistent aliens or persistent non-natives. These species don’t have a lot of impact. Of those 10 species which establish, however, one might well become invasive – reproducing, expanding its distribution, interacting with the native community with adverse outcomes. It is these which are the species we need to worry most about. It is, however, also a feature of invasion biology that some species remain ‘persistent’ for sometimes many years before switching to ‘invasive’, a risk that needs recognising and that is then compounded by climate change. All that is to say, most species that get to a new place aren’t going to cause a great amount of damage, if any at all. A proportion, however, will. There are currently 18 non-native invertebrate species known from the Antarctic Peninsula region. Most of those are known from single location. Of those 18, two are arguably now true invasives. So in our case the ‘rule of 10s’ isn’t exactly accurate, but it’s a broad ‘rule of thumb’ in the global context.
Contador et al. (2020) ‘Assessing distribution shifts and ecophysiological characteristics of the only Antarctic winged midge under climate change scenarios’: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65571-3
entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!
entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.
The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:
Industrial melanism refers to the phenomenon whereby some invertebrates evolved dark (melanic) forms in response to the darkening by soot of their resting surfaces during the Industrial Revolution. This response provided a clear example of Darwin’s ‘evolution by natural selection’ and was particularly well studies in moths. In this webinar Geoff will reappraise three claimed examples of industrial melanism in spiders and draw conclusions as to whether they constitute genuine exemplars of the phenomenon.
Q&A with Dr Geoff Oxford
Dr Geoff Oxford taught genetics and evolution at the University of York for nearly 40 years. His research largely focusing on (a) the adaptive significance of colour polymorphisms in spiders, and (b), speciation and hybridization in Large House spider species. He was a past president of the British Arachnological Society and is currently Hon. Secretary.
1. E.B. Ford famously tested how the camouflage provided by the Peppered Moth’s melanic form affected predation of the moth by birds. To do this he pinned moths on different backgrounds and counted how many were detected and eaten. Has any parallel study been conducted on melanic spiders?
No – and unfortunately the window of opportunity to conduct such workhas now passed because we don’t see melanic spiders anymore! As I discussed in the talk, the environment in which the melanic spiders were once found has changed dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. Buildings that were once blackened with soot are now squeaky clean again. The melanic form of the Peppered Moth is now extremely rare even in historically industrial regions. A similar fate likely befell the melanic forms of these spiders. Even if there are rare melanic specimens still hanging on, it’s unlikely they are a common enough phenotype to conduct tests on, at least in Britain. Whilst industrial melanism is now considered an effectively historical phenomenon in this country, other regions around the world are only just beginning, or in the middle, of their own industrial revolutions. India, for example, is currently going through extensive industrialisation, and many areas are burning large quantities of coal fuel. As in Britain in the 1800s, buildings will be blackened with soot and polluted by SO2. It would be very interesting to know if any Indian arachnologists are aware of industrial melanic species in situ in the present day.
2. How many generations does it take for a moth or spider to reach ‘full melanism’? Presumably it develops gradually?
Because melanism usually arises from a single dominant mutation, the first individual carrying the mutation will be melanic to some degree. However, after the original jump to melanism, so-called ‘modifier genes’ (multiple genes each with a small effect) can amplify the melanic phenotype, making it even darker. Bernard Kettlewell, a pioneer lepidopterist who studied industrial melanism in moths, compared early museum specimens of the melanic form of the Peppered Moth and noticed they were less dark than specimens he caught in the 1950s, meaning after the first major mutation, additional genetic changes were selected for that enhanced the melanic phenotype.
3. What’s the distinction between micro-evolution and adaptation?
Essentially they’re the same thing. Adaptation occurs as the result of changes of gene frequencies in populations. That’s what’s happened with some of these spiders and the Peppered Moth – the melanic form became advantageous in polluted environments and so increased in frequency.
4. Might epigenetics be involved in the story of industrial melanism?
Epigenetics refers to the phenomenon whereby the external environment affects the expression of genes in organism, an effect that can transcend generations. It is possible that this phenomenon was involved in industrial melanism – but we don’t know. This branch of genetics is relatively young and only emerged long after the original work on industrial melanism was conducted.
5. Do you think there might be any more undiscovered examples of industrial melanism hiding in existing museum collections?
It’s certainly possible – the only reason I was able to publish my review of industrial melanism in the three spider species discussed today was because specimens had ended up at the Manchester Museum, where entomology collections are well curated and catalogued. In other, less well organised collections, there may well be discoveries still waiting to be made.
Ford (1975) ‘Ecological genetics’. 4th edition. London: Chapman & Hall.
Kettlewell (1973) ‘The evolution of melanism: The study of a recurring necessity, with special reference to industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera’. London: Clarendon Press
Majerus (1998) ‘Melanism – evolution in action’. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Lees (1981) ‘Industrial melanism: genetic adaptation of animals to air pollution’. In Bishop and Cook (eds.), ‘Genetic consequences of man made change’. London: Academic Press: 341–352
Mackie (1964) ‘A melanic form of Salticus scenicus (Clerck)’. British Spider Study Group Bulletin 24: 4
Mackie (1965) ‘An enquiry into the habits of Drapestica socialis (Sund.)’. British Spider Study Group Bulletin 27: 4–6
Arnold and Crocker (1967) ‘Arctosa perita (Latr.) from colliery spoil heaps in Warwickshire and Leicestershire’ British Spider Study Group Bulletin 35: 7–8
entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!
entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.
The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:
With over 400,000 described species, Coleoptera represent one of the most diverse groups of organisms on Earth, necessitating a global, integrative approach to understanding their evolutionary history. This effort begins with standardised field collection, specimen imaging, and identification, followed by high-quality DNA extraction. By combining genomic, mitochondrial, and barcode data, we are building the most comprehensive Coleoptera phylogeny to date – spanning over 100,000 species, including many that remain undescribed. This large-scale phylogenetic framework enables us to move beyond species counts, revealing global patterns of biodiversity through time and space and providing essential insights into species loss and the broader consequences of global change.
Q&A with Dr Beulah Garner
Dr Beulah Garner is a Senior Curator of Entomology at the Natural History Museum, London, where she oversees the collections of Orthopteroid insects and their allies. A specialist in beetles, her research focuses particularly on the evolutionary origins of ground beetles (Carabidae). In addition to her curatorial and research work, she serves as Chair of the Coleopterists Society of Britain and Ireland, supporting the advancement of beetle studies across the region.
1. How necessary is it to collect (and therefore kill) so many beetle specimens for a project like this, especially considering some of the species may be rare?
This is an important question which comes up a lot. My general response is this – how could we possibly go about this sort of research without collecting specimens? Technology may be rapidly evolving, but there’s currently no other methodology out there which can gather fine-scale, species-level data on distribution and diversity besides specimen collection. I personally struggle to imagine that such a technology – non-invasive, non-destructive and yet capable of gathering species-level data – ever could exist. And yet we must gather this data somehow because this research is so important. Not only does it provide insights into fundamental scientific questions – such as the origin and evolution of life on Earth – but it scaffolds the taxonomic backbone around which all invertebrate conservation is based. If we want to conserve invertebrate diversity, we must first understand invertebrate diversity, and currently there’s no feasible way to do that without collecting specimens. So, to answer, the question, it’s completely necessary. If there was any feasible alternative that didn’t involve killing beetles – we would obviously do that instead!
2. With over 400,000 species described, and many more awaiting description, beetles represent an astonishing portion of the diversity of life on Earth. Why exactly have beetles been so successful at diversifying and speciating?
There are several factors involved. Most straightforwardly, beetles have been around for a long time. Current estimates suggest they first evolved in the early Permian, 295-300 million years ago – so they’ve had a lot of time to diversify! A more interesting dimension of the explanation is that beetles have displayed, and continue to display, a fantastic ability to diversify into both generalists and specialists. Both life strategies have proven to be successful in nature, and both can independently generate amazing radiations of species. In Coleoptera, both strategies are being harnessed independently, resulting in speciation on huge scales. The generalist life strategy works because it provides species with resilience against environmental change. As per the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ principle; adaptability to newly available ecological niches is the key determinant of the evolutionary success of a lineage of species. Generalists are masters of this. For example, in the family I work mostly on – the Carabidae or ground beetles – there are thousands of generalist species capable of surviving in a range of habitats and consuming a variety of prey. On the other side of the spectrum, taking this to the other extreme, many beetles are instead specialists. Weevils (superfamily Curculionoidea), for example, include tens of thousands of species which are specialised to feed on single host plant species. What this life strategy foregoes in terms of resilience to environmental change it makes up for in resilience against competition from other species. Again, this provides robustness against threat of extinction and drives diversification.
3. Does preparing a beetle for DNA extraction involving destroying the specimen?
Not anymore! But in the past, yes. In fact, in the early days of DNA extraction you’d have to literally grind up the specimen to prepare it, meaning no voucher specimen to link to the sample. That then progressed to just removing a single leg, or a section of flight muscle, from the specimen to prepare for DNA extraction. Nowadays we don’t even need to do that. You can simply bathe a specimen in what’s called a ‘lysing solution’, the DNA will be extracted overnight, and the specimen should be able to be taken, unaltered from the liquid afterwards, and incorporated into a dry pinned collection or to a molecular collection facility in preservation fluid.
4. The Natural History Museum in London houses some of the largest collections of Coleoptera from around the world, including the type specimens for hundreds of species. Have there been any efforts to link the findings of the Site-100 project to the existing collections at the museum?
Linking the molecular and voucher specimens from Site-100 to existing collections at the NHM would be amazing, but sadly it is outside the scope of our current team. It would take a considerable amount of time and money and personnel to complete such a task. We cannot feasibly consider starting on it as things currently stand. I would hope, however, that in the future such work might be undertaken. We are preserving and digitising the Site-100 collection in such a way that it can hopefully continue to be worked on decades to centuries into the future. Sadly at that point many of the undescribed species we’ve collected may well have already gone extinct.
entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!
entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.
The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:
During 2025 and 2026, the Biological Recording Company is collaborating with the London Borough of Bexley to deliver a series of Field Recorder Days at Lesnes Abbey Woods, a large woodland in south London famous for its ruined abbey. These Field Recorder Days have been commissioned as part of Lesnes 500, a large-scale project made possible with a generous grant from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Lesnes 500 commemorates 500 years since the ‘dissolution’ of Lesnes Abbey (when it stopped functioning as a formal abbey), and aims to engage local communities with Lesnes Abbey Woods through a range of events focused on heritage, creativity, nature and education. We are contributing to the nature and education aspect!
Field Recorder Days
Our Field Recorder Days are a core part of our company’s mission to get more people observing wildlife and submitting data into biological recording systems. Each day involves visiting a site as a group to make field observations, collecting specimens for identification at a later date if needed, and submitting data to iRecord. Each of our Field Recorder Days has a specific taxonomic focus and is led by a species-group specialist. Attendance is free, and recorders of all levels (from newcomer to seasoned pro) are welcome, but booking is mandatory as spaces are limited. Check out our Field Recorder Days events at Lesnes Abbey Woods Fields below.
Upcoming Field Recorder Day events at Lesnes Abbey Woods
Past Field Recorder Day Events at Lesnes Abbey Woods
Read about what found and got up to on our Field Recorder Day events at Lesnes Abbey Woods so far.
Meadow Botany Field Recorder Day (24/07/2025)
A Meadow Botany Field Recorder Day was held at Lesnes Abbey Woods on 24th July 2025. The event was led by botanist and joint-Middlesex county plant recorder Henry Miller and attended by 26 participants. Given the focus of the day was specifically on meadow botany, we focused our recording for the day on the grassland areas to the north of the Lesnes Abbey Woods site, rather than venturing in the woodland. The participants split into groups and focused on finding as many different plant species as possible within assigned 100 × 100 m grid cells. Across the day, participants generated an impressive 286 total records and recorded 94 different plant species.
Henry Miller teaching plant identification tips to participants during the Meadow Botany Field Recorder Day.
Three of the most notable species found on the day included:
Tower Mustard Turritis glabra – An uncommon plant typically associated with free-draining, nutrient-poor sandy soils in, for example, lowland acid grassland or in periodically disturbed marginal habitats. The species is considered ‘very local and declining’ at the national level (Rose, 2006).
Lesser Calamint Clinopodium calamintha – Another site rarity. This is a short-lived herb fond of south-facing banks and rough grassland. Formerly more widespread, it is now largely confined to roadsides, hedgebanks, railway banks, old pits, scrubby grassland, churchyards and waste ground (Walker, 2020).
Fiddle Dock Rumex pulcher – One of the more uncommonly recorded species of dock, distinctive for its violin-shaped basal leaves. It is fond of slightly disturbed grassland, often where the habitat is grazed, trampled or mown (Pescott, 2020).
A Plant Gall Recorder Day was held at Lesnes Abbey Woods on 20th September 2025. The event was led by LNHS Plant Gall Recorder Tommy Root and attended by 17 participants. Plant galls are a diverse group of structures formed when insects, mites, fungi or other organisms invade plant tissues. They come in a wide range of shapes and colours and, while often unusual in appearance, generally do not cause substantial harm to the plants they grow on. Across the day, participants generated 187 records including 44 gall-forming species.
Oak trees proved especially productive, with many gall-forming species present at Lesnes. A large Turkey Oak Quercus cerris hosted the galls of the mite Aceria cerrea and the sexual generation galls of the wasp Andricus grossulariae. At a nearby English Oak Quercus robur we observed the spiky green galls of the agamic generation of A. grossulariae, a single Ram’s Horn Gall Andricus aries, and numerous Knopper Galls Andricus quercuscalicis scattered beneath the tree.
Recording in the parkland added additional discoveries on ornamental trees and shrubs, including the artichoke-like galls of Taxomyia taxi on Yew Taxus baccata and the pouch-like swellings of Dasineura urticae on Common Nettle Urtica dioica.
In the afternoon we moved to the woodland margin. A Sessile Oak Quercus petraea here yielded four additional cynipid wasp galls, and nearby elm leaves held mite galls of Aceria campestricola. Additional species from the woodland edge and interior included the fungal galls of Taphrina populina, leaf pustule galls of the wasp Ophelimus maskelli on Eucalyptus, the ‘lighthouse’ gall of the midge Hartigiola annulipes on Beech Fagus sylvatica and galls of the recently arrived Oriental Chestnut Gall Wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus on Sweet Chestnut Castanea sativa.
A Fungi Field Recorder Day was held at Lesnes Abbey Woods on 28th October 2025. The event was led by mycologist and botanist Mark Spencer and attended by 32 participants. Over the day, participants divided into small groups to survey different grid cells. Thanks to the use of indoor workspace in Lesnes Lodge, groups were able to sort and organise and identify their specimens over lunch and during an afternoon identification session. Across the day, participants generated 126 records, including 62 fungi species.
In the morning session, we concentrated on the northern woodland edge, with groups each tackling a 100 × 100 m grid cell. A wide range of species was recorded, including the mushrooms Psathyrella candolleana (Pale Brittlestem), Gymnopus fusipes (Spindle Toughshank), Chlorophyllum rhacodes (Shaggy Parasol) and Daldinia concentrica (King Alfred’s Cakes). Other finds included the crust fungus Basidioradulum radula (Toothed Crust), the sulphur-scented Tricholoma sulphureum and the tiny pink lichenicolous fungus Iliosporiopsis christiansenii on the lichen Physcia adscendens.
In the afternoon the group moved to the small heathland in the south of Lesnes Abbey Woods, one of the few remaining heathland fragments in Greater London and an important refuge for specialist species. Highlights included a striking patch of Trametes betulina (Birch Mazegill) growing – intriguingly – from an English Oak Quercus robur stump, several fine specimens of Amanita muscaria (Fly Agaric), the jelly-like Phaeotremella foliacea (Leafy Brain) and the maroon mushroom Cortinarius decipiens. The latter is particularly uncommonly recorded; Lesnes Abbey Woods is only the second known London site for the species on iRecord. The heath was also productive for Russula (Brittlegills), with three species identified by Mark Spencer: R. ionochlora, R. betularum and R. velenovskyi.
At the Biological Recording Company, we specialise in planning and delivering projects centred around recording wildlife and training naturalists.
London Recording Projects involve the delivery of events from our Field Recorder Day, Invertebrate Study Day, Earthworm Sampling Day and Training Course programmes. Examples include:
Site-based projects, such as Wild Tolworth, Ealing Beaver Project and Lesnes 500.
Borough-based projects, such as our Southwark and Barnetprojects.
Earthworm Projects range from identification training and earthworm surveys to research and consultation. Example include:
Engagement-focused projects, such as delivering earthworm recorder training in Northern Ireland and working with farmers in the Chilterns.
Research-focused projects, such as looking at the impact of hay meadow restoration on earthworm communities, assessing the effectiveness of regenerative farming practices and investigating the use of AI in earthworm identification.
National Biological Recording Projects entail putting our expertise to use with helping other organisations improve the biological recording processes and reach new audiences.
Training projects include developing online training for Lepidoptera verifiers and producing guidance on the use of Record Cleaner and iRecord.
The Big Rock Pool Challenge is a nationwide citizen science initiative that invites people of all ages to explore their local coastlines and discover the remarkable wildlife hidden in rock pools. In this talk, Dr Ben Holt (CEO and co-founder of The Rock Pool Project) shares how the challenge blends hands-on marine exploration with digital tools to create a fun, accessible, and scientifically valuable experience for communities across the UK. From competitive BioBlitz battles to large-scale biodiversity recording, he reveals how the Challenge is transforming public engagement with the ocean and empowering thousands of volunteers to contribute meaningful data to marine conservation.
Q&A with Dr Ben Holt
Dr Ben Holt is a marine biologist and the CEO and co-founder of The Rock Pool Project, a UK social enterprise that connects people with the incredible wildlife of the coast through community science, education, and digital innovation. With a background in marine ecology and biogeography, Ben has spent his career exploring how people interact with the natural world and how technology can inspire large-scale participation in environmental research. Under his leadership, The Rock Pool Project has grown into a nationwide movement empowering thousands of volunteers to record and protect marine life through initiatives such as the Big Rock Pool Challenge. Ben is a passionate communicator who blends scientific expertise with creative outreach, helping to build stronger connections between people, technology, and the sea.
1. Do you have an idea what rough percentage of the species records recorded by participants on the bioblitzes are correctly identified upon submission?
I don’t have the exact numbers, but generally I’d estimate that about 90% of records are correctly identified upon submission. The 10% that are incorrect are a mixture of those which are (a) wrongly identified, or (b) not identifiable to as specific a taxonomic rank as the user originally suggested (e.g. user suggested species A, but it could also be species B in the same genus, so the record should be corrected to genus level). I mentioned in the talk that after each event we give participants a ‘score’ based on the combined rarity scores of all the species they’ve recorded. We stress, however, that this score they receive on the day is ‘provisional’. Their ‘real’ score is awarded later, in five days’ time, based on their species records which reach ‘Research Grade’ status on iNaturalist. By the end of that 5-day period my experience tells me that very few (<1%) of those Research Grade observations are incorrectly identified – the community is very good at catching errors.
2. Are the Big Rock Pool Challenge organisers also providing identifications for participants on iNaturalist?
Yes, this is part of the voluntary role of the organisers at each hub. The organisers are tasked with following up on the records generated in the 5-day period after each event and providing identifications. This involves a mixture of confirming the identification of correctly identified species, correcting the (usually small number of) incorrectly identified records, refining observations made at high taxonomic ranks to lower ranks where applicable, and sometimes bumping observations back up to higher ranks if the identification suggested is deemed too specific and not justified. In addition to the organisers, we also encourage participants to get involved with the identification if they feel confident doing so.
3. Are there plans to expand the number of Big Rock Pool Challenge ‘hubs’ across the country?
Yes – and if you would like to be involved in setting up a new hub we would love to hear from you! We’ve recently launched a new page on our website specifically for this, in fact, where you can register your interest. So far the Big Rock Pool Challenge is running at nine hubs across the country (you can see these on this map on our website). We would love to put any additional funding towards establishing more hubs. We are currently in the process of negotiating a third year of funding from Scottish Power, for example, and if successful with that we should be able to support fifteen new hubs across the UK launching towards the end of 2026. In addition to that, we have recently published guidance on setting up and running a ‘pilot’ Big Rock Pool Challenge bioblitz battle in your local area. If you like the idea of the challenge but aren’t sure if you want to commit to being a full ‘hub’ yet, I recommend checking this out. The guidance for ‘pilot events’ is on our website here.
4. How is this all funded?
Currently we are funded by grants from the Scottish Power Foundation and the National Lottery Heritage Fund – we are immensely grateful to these organisations. The challenge we have going forward is how to make our work financially sustainable in the long term. Grant funds are excellent, but they are preferentially directed towards establishing new projects rather than funding ongoing ones. We definitely do not want to scrap The Big Rock Pool Challenge and start something new; we want to keep this going and build it. The Rock Pool Project as an organisation has therefore recently applied to become a charity, transitioning away from its previous life as a non-profit Community Interest Company (CIC). We’ll be working on building a sustainable funding model as a charity over the coming year. If anyone has experience in the charity sector and would like to advise us, please do get in touch – I’d love to hear from you.
5. Have there been any publications based on your datasets?
Not yet, but we hope to see some in the future. Currently we’re still in the first few years of data collection at our sites, but as the temporal span of the data grows I imagine we will start registering some interesting trends in the fortunes of marine life around the British coast. At our principal hubs in Cornwall (Castle Beach and Mount Batten) we have already started anecdotally noticing temporal trends in populations of some species. There are 10–20 species which were rare when we first started that are now very common, for example. In addition to monitoring trends in common, native species we are also keen to be involved in the monitoring and detection of non-native marine species. To get the ball rolling on this, we’ve collaborated with Natural England to identify a group of non-native marine species which are of potential concern and are regularly sharing our data on these species onwards. Generally, any university researchers or students keen to use our dataset – please get in touch! We’d love to collaborate with you.
marineLIVE webinars feature guest marine biologists talking about their research into the various organisms that inhabit our seas and oceans, and the threats that they face. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for marine life is all that’s required!
Check out the British Ecological Society website for more information on membership, events, publications and special interest groups: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/
Nestled in the serene environs of Paradise Fields in Greenford, Ealing, the Ealing Beaver Project is a groundbreaking initiative aimed at fostering urban human-beaver coexistence. As London’s first fully accessible urban beaver reintroduction site, the project partnership are dedicated to bringing people closer to nature right in the heart of the city.
Thanks to funding from the Mayor of London’s Rewild London Fund, the Biological Recording Company was able to deliver a series of Field Recorder Day events at the site prior to the release of the beavers. In 2026, we are delighted to be returning to Paradise Fields (thanks to the HS2 Community and Environment Fund) to give naturalists an opportunity to record the wildlife in the ‘post-beaver’ landscape. It will be very interesting to see what we find which is new! See the full programme of events – including links to sign-up for free – below.
Pre-release Field Recorder Days
Three of the more notable species recorded and photographed at Paradise Fields during the pre-release Field Recorder Days are pictured below. From left to right:
Check out our 2026 Field Recorder Day programme at Paradise Fields below. Attendance is free, and recorders of all levels (from newcomer to seasoned pro) are welcome, but booking is mandatory as spaces are limited. Check out our Field Recorder Days events at Paradise Fields in 2026 below.
At the Biological Recording Company, we specialise in planning and delivering projects centred around recording wildlife and training naturalists.
London Recording Projects involve the delivery of events from our Field Recorder Day, Invertebrate Study Day, Earthworm Sampling Day and Training Course programmes. Examples include:
Site-based projects, such as Wild Tolworth, Ealing Beaver Project and Lesnes 500.
Borough-based projects, such as our Southwark and Barnetprojects.
Earthworm Projects range from identification training and earthworm surveys to research and consultation. Example include:
Engagement-focused projects, such as delivering earthworm recorder training in Northern Ireland and working with farmers in the Chilterns.
Research-focused projects, such as looking at the impact of hay meadow restoration on earthworm communities, assessing the effectiveness of regenerative farming practices and investigating the use of AI in earthworm identification.
National Biological Recording Projects entail putting our expertise to use with helping other organisations improve the biological recording processes and reach new audiences.
Training projects include developing online training for Lepidoptera verifiers and producing guidance on the use of Record Cleaner and iRecord.
A tiny flightless midge, Eretmoptera murphyi, accidentally introduced to Antarctica in the 1960s, has spread across Signy Island and now dominates the soil ecosystem. Its larvae feed on dead plant material, enriching the soil with nitrogen and changing conditions in ways that could help other species invade. Octavia’s research reveals these midge-altered soils also release more greenhouse gases, meaning this small insect could be quietly accelerating climate change in one of the planet’s most fragile environments.
Q&A with Octavia Brayley
Octavia Brayley is a Ph.D. researcher at the University of Birmingham and British Antarctic Survey, principally investigating the ecological impacts of a non-native insect species on Signy Island, Antarctica. Her work integrates biogeochemistry and microbiology to assess environmental effects, recently expanding to the microbiomes and physiology of related insects in sub-Antarctic regions. Beyond research, Octavia was the previous co-head of education and outreach for the UK Polar Network, and hosts the Polar Diaries podcast.
1. Did you find a difference in the microbiology of soils with versus without Eretmoptera murphyi present?
This is a really interesting area for investigation, but sadly it was not something I was able to look into as part of my PhD. There have, however, been some previous studies that have looked at the microbiology of soils on Signy Island, and we did, as part of my research, identify a few groups of soil bacteria in Signy soils that hadn’t previously been documented. Whether or not these have anything to do with E. murphyi I cannot comment on. They may be commensal microorganisms which came along with E. murphyi, but more research would definitely be needed before drawing a conclusion. An exciting way to investigate this question would be to collect E. murphyi-associated soils from South Georgia island – its native environment – and compare them against soils from the same island but from places where E. murphyi is known to be absent. The difficulty with this is that it’s actually almost impossible these days to find E. murphyi on South Georgia! It seems to have practically disappeared. This may be linked to the introduction of a different non-native species to South Georgia – a predatory beetle – which feeds on E. murphyi there.
2. How effective are the biosecurity protocols on Antarctica these days?
In my opinion, the biosecurity protocols for scientists are currently not the best and sorely need to be updated. There is a specific chemical called Virkon which is currently used by Antarctic scientists to sanitise boots and equipment when landing on islands in and around Antarctica. A study was done a few years ago looking at how effective Virkon was at killing Eretmoptera murphyi. Turns out – even when dropped into a vat of the stuff – the midge survived. If E. murphyi can survive Virkon then it’s likely other hardy Antarctic invertebrates that might be introduced in the future can survive it too. I don’t know so much about how effective it is at sterilising plant seeds, but I would guess it’s also imperfect. Like invertebrates, the seeds of plants in this part of the world can be very robust. The biosecurity measures for tourists are, fortunately, a lot better. There are also very strict guidelines in place regarding which islands tourists can visit and whereabouts they can go on said islands. I suspect Peter Convey – giving another entoLIVE about Antarctic Invertebrates later this year in March – will have more to say on the topic of biosecurity too, if still of interest.
3. Why is increased nitrogen concentration in Antarctic soils a problem?
Great question. Increased nitrogen concentrations are actually not necessarily a problem, in the short-term at least. I personally hypothesise that the plants present on Signy Island (mosses and the like) and perhaps also some of the invertebrates might actually benefit from the higher nitrogen concentrations in the short-term. Higher nitrate levels means more nutrients for growth in plants, for example. I don’t expect terrible consequences immediately, by any means. What is concerning, however, is the long-term impact. If E. murphyi is boosting soil nitrogen on Signy Island currently, it is possible that this will open a window for more non-native species to establish in the future. Again, arrival of new species doesn’t necessarily mean negative consequences for the native wildlife, but there is a risk. Antarctic ecosystems are inherently fragile, so any upset to the natural balance is alarming.
4. Do you anticipate that there might be knock-on effects of elevated soil nutrients on some of the larger Antarctic animals?
Another interesting question. As far as I know, nobody has – so far – officially studied this topic in the Antarctic context. The larger Antarctic animals – famous things like penguins and seals, for example – do sometimes use terrestrial environments for part of their life cycle, but generally I wouldn’t expect a chemical change in soil conditions to affect them greatly. The most important parts of their lives are spent in the water, really. They are only really on land for mating and ‘chilling out’ (pun intended?). A slightly tangential fun fact, however, is that both penguins and seals do interact with terrestrial nutrient cycles in Antarctica through defecating; their poop creates ‘pulses’ of nutrient input to the terrestrial environment!
5. Does anything eat Eretmoptera murphyi?
Nothing on Signy Island, no, but there is a non-native predatory beetle found on South Georgia Island which eats the midge. Some people have suggested introducing that beetle to Signy Island too, but I am very skeptical of that being a good idea! History has given us plenty of examples of how introducing one species to control another has made things even worse than they originally were!
Literature References
Bartlett et al. (2023) ‘Ecological consequences of a single introduced species to the Antarctic: Terrestrial impacts of the invasive midge Eretmoptera murphyi on Signy Island’: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.108965
Bartlett et al. (2020) ‘An insect invasion of Antarctica: the past, present and future distribution of Eretmoptera murphyi (Diptera, Chironomidae) on Signy Island’: https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12389
Bartlett et al. (2021) ‘The effectiveness of Virkon® S disinfectant against an invasive insect and implications for Antarctic biosecurity practices’: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102020000413
Brayley et al. (2025) ‘The microbiome of an invasive Antarctic insect, Eretmoptera murphyi (Diptera: Chironomidae), and its potential role in nutrient cycling’: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7744438/v1
entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!
entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.
The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:
Biological Recording 