The following post comes to us from our new President, Staffan Lindgren, who in addition to being a great researcher, takes the time to make natural history observations which are crucial for any entomologist.
On occasion I grab my camera and go out in the garden to see if some photogenic insect or other arthropod is willing to pose for me. On October 18, I went out to see what was happening around the rose bushes between ours and our neighbour’s yard. I was immediately struck by the fairly intense activity of yellowjackets, which peaked my curiosity. After looking around for a while I saw what the commotion was all about; a large queen was being mobbed by a number of males. To my knowledge, I have never seen a male yellowjacket wasp before. A casual observer would just think that they were workers, since they are about the same size and don’t otherwise look obviously different. Looking closer I realized that the queen was in copula with one of the males, so I tried to get some photos. It immediately became clear that I had the wrong lens on; my Canon MP-E 65 macro simply couldn’t capture the entire scene. Therefore the photos I managed to take only show parts of the scene. I didn’t have time to go back and change the lens, unfortunately, but below are a few shots.
Here is another view of the male.
This is the queen. The male she was mating with is in the lower right corner. Note the second male trying to mate with her in the background. Note also that her legs are not in contact with the leaf; she was essentially held by the male.
And here is a view of the act of mating, showing the male in the foreground holding on to the queen. Using these photos and the identification guide to the Vespinae I came to the conclusion that these are Vespula pensylvanica Saussure.
https://esc-sec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/5th_annual_4.jpg800534Sean McCannhttp://esc-sec.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ESC_logo-300x352.pngSean McCann2014-10-26 03:00:552019-11-14 21:30:10Mating of western yellowjackets
Sarah Loboda of McGill University, a double runner-up! Photo by Miles Zhang.
In my last post, I shared some thoughts about the value of the President’s Prize at Annual Meetings of the Entomological Society of Canada. This time, with the help of Tyler Wist, I present the names and categories for each of the winners and runners-up.
I would like to congratulate all of these fine scientists, and invite each of them to share a bit about their work here on the ESC blog.
Oral Presentations
Bees and Pollination
Winner:
Veronika Lambinet (Simon Fraser University), with M. Bieri, M. Hayden, and G. Gries.
Bee talk – Do honeybees use the earth’s magnetic field as a reference to align their waggle dance?
Honourable mention:
Danae Frier (University of Regina), with C. Sheffield.
Bumblebees do it better: the importance of native bees to the pollination of haskap crops.
Biodiversity and Conservation
Winner:
Sebastian Ibarra (Simon Fraser University), with S. McCann, R. Gries, H. Zhai, and G. Gries.
The wrath of the bald-faced hornet – pheromone-mediated nest defence.
Honourable mention:
Seung-Il Lee (University of Alberta), with J. Spence and D. Langor.
Variable retention harvesting and saproxylic beetle conservation in white spruce stands of the boreal ecosystem.
Sarah Loboda (McGill University), with J. Savage, T. Hoye, and C. Buddle.
Ecological and evolutionary responses of Arctic flies to recent climate change in Zackenberg, Greenland.
Arthropod Biology
Winner:
Sharleen Balogh (University of Northern British Columbia), with D. Huber and S. Lindgren.
Host selection of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) by the Warren root collar weevil (Hylobius warreni).
Honourable mention:
Aldo Rios (University of Manitoba), with A. Costamagna.
Contribution of soybean aphid alates to colony fitness under predation.
Pest Management
Winner:
Tina Dancau (CABI, Switzerland), with T. Haye, P. Mason, and D. Gillespie.
Mortality factors affecting the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) in continental Europe: a preliminary life table analysis.
Honourable mention:
Jon Williams (University of Guelph), with H. Earl and R. Hallett.
Laboratory investigations of swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii, oviposition and damage symptoms to canola.
Posters
Winner:
Sabrina Rochefort (McGill University), with T. Wheeler.
Taxonomy and diversity of Parapiophila (Diptera: Piophilidae).
Honourable mention:
Sarah Loboda (McGill University), with C. Ernst and C. Buddle.
Yellow pan traps versus pitfall traps: best monitoring tool for ground-dwelling arthropods in the Arctic.
Sabrina Rochefort – winner of the President’s Prize for best poster
At the recent ESC/ESS JAM in Saskatoon, not only were we treated to some great science and camaraderie, but the beloved institution of the President’s Prize sessions for student talks and posters provided some of the most stimulating and exciting times. This was my first year not being in the competition, and I would like to offer my views on the subject.
1) The President’s Prize encourages excellence: Students are definitely motivated to deliver polished and professional presentations in the hopes that their efforts will be recognized publicly. This reaches further than the conference, to encourage students to vet their talks and posters within their laboratories and departments in formal and informal settings in order to make the best presentation possible. This can only be a good thing.
2) The recognition is important: this prize, although modest financially, has amazing value as something to put on one’s CV. This enhances the career prospects of the winners and also the recognition that conference travel for students is worth funding within departments. Again, the value of this prize reaches much further than the conference, as students returning with the tangible benefits of a prize winning talk encourages others to make it a priority to attend and give an excellent talk next year.
The President’s Prize and the more recent innovation of the Graduate Student Showcase are thus valuable to the society as a whole. By encouraging and recognizing the efforts of students who attend our conferences to present well-polished research results, we promote excellence in scientific communication. We can all learn from the skill and innovation of these students!
With all of this in mind, I would like to make some recommendations:
1) For every conference, pre-publish the scoring rubric to be used by the judges. This will ensure that students entering a talk or poster know what points they have to hit to make their talk a candidate for the prize. These rubrics should not penalize creativity on the part of the students or discretion on the part of the judges, but should ensure that there is a baseline for what is expected.
2) At every conference, formally recognize runners-up in every session: It costs nothing but a bit of extra time during award presentation, but the chance to bestow recognition on a few more students should not go to waste. Many sessions have many excellent talks, and to send an excellent presenter home with nothing does no one any good. It has been a bit hit and miss in recent years at ESC meetings with regards to runners-up, and I think it should be the case that every conference includes this important recognition.
3) Send all competitors home with the judging sheets. This is a bit more onerous on the part of the judges, but the judges can definitely jot down some notes on their scoring sheet and show the tally for how well the talk lived up to the rubric. This is important to show that the criteria used to score the talks informed the decision. More importantly, it allows students to see how well their talk met the judges’ expectations, and to improve their presentations for the next year. This has been done at a couple of ESC meetings over the last few years and as far as I know, students found the feedback they got very valuable and were able to use it to improve their science communication skills.
Thanks to Mile Zhang for photos of the poster competitors, and to Catherine Scott for helpful suggestions. Congratulations to all this year’s winners, runners-up, and competitors!
https://esc-sec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/6th_annual_20.jpg800533Sean McCannhttp://esc-sec.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ESC_logo-300x352.pngSean McCann2014-10-04 08:56:372019-11-14 21:30:04What is a President’s Prize worth?
https://esc-sec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/29-1.jpg700859Sean McCannhttp://esc-sec.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ESC_logo-300x352.pngSean McCann2014-09-29 08:54:272019-11-14 21:30:01ESC/ESS JAM 2014 Day 1 photos
Just a reminder…Summer does not last long here in Canada, so if there are any insects you have missed so far this year, now is the time to get out and find them!
https://esc-sec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20-1.jpg664900Sean McCannhttp://esc-sec.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ESC_logo-300x352.pngSean McCann2014-08-20 23:37:402019-11-14 21:30:00Drop in on your friends…Before it’s too late!
Mating of western yellowjackets
The following post comes to us from our new President, Staffan Lindgren, who in addition to being a great researcher, takes the time to make natural history observations which are crucial for any entomologist.
Male Vespula pensylvanica. This was the male that was mating with the queen.
On occasion I grab my camera and go out in the garden to see if some photogenic insect or other arthropod is willing to pose for me. On October 18, I went out to see what was happening around the rose bushes between ours and our neighbour’s yard. I was immediately struck by the fairly intense activity of yellowjackets, which peaked my curiosity. After looking around for a while I saw what the commotion was all about; a large queen was being mobbed by a number of males. To my knowledge, I have never seen a male yellowjacket wasp before. A casual observer would just think that they were workers, since they are about the same size and don’t otherwise look obviously different. Looking closer I realized that the queen was in copula with one of the males, so I tried to get some photos. It immediately became clear that I had the wrong lens on; my Canon MP-E 65 macro simply couldn’t capture the entire scene. Therefore the photos I managed to take only show parts of the scene. I didn’t have time to go back and change the lens, unfortunately, but below are a few shots.
Here is another view of the male.
This is the queen. The male she was mating with is in the lower right corner. Note the second male trying to mate with her in the background. Note also that her legs are not in contact with the leaf; she was essentially held by the male.
And here is a view of the act of mating, showing the male in the foreground holding on to the queen. Using these photos and the identification guide to the Vespinae I came to the conclusion that these are Vespula pensylvanica Saussure.
President’s Prize winners and runners-up
Sarah Loboda of McGill University, a double runner-up! Photo by Miles Zhang.
In my last post, I shared some thoughts about the value of the President’s Prize at Annual Meetings of the Entomological Society of Canada. This time, with the help of Tyler Wist, I present the names and categories for each of the winners and runners-up.
I would like to congratulate all of these fine scientists, and invite each of them to share a bit about their work here on the ESC blog.
Oral Presentations
Bees and Pollination
Winner:
Veronika Lambinet (Simon Fraser University), with M. Bieri, M. Hayden, and G. Gries.
Bee talk – Do honeybees use the earth’s magnetic field as a reference to align their waggle dance?
Honourable mention:
Danae Frier (University of Regina), with C. Sheffield.
Bumblebees do it better: the importance of native bees to the pollination of haskap crops.
Biodiversity and Conservation
Winner:
Sebastian Ibarra (Simon Fraser University), with S. McCann, R. Gries, H. Zhai, and G. Gries.
The wrath of the bald-faced hornet – pheromone-mediated nest defence.
Honourable mention:
Seung-Il Lee (University of Alberta), with J. Spence and D. Langor.
Variable retention harvesting and saproxylic beetle conservation in white spruce stands of the boreal ecosystem.
Sarah Loboda (McGill University), with J. Savage, T. Hoye, and C. Buddle.
Ecological and evolutionary responses of Arctic flies to recent climate change in Zackenberg, Greenland.
Arthropod Biology
Winner:
Sharleen Balogh (University of Northern British Columbia), with D. Huber and S. Lindgren.
Host selection of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) by the Warren root collar weevil (Hylobius warreni).
Honourable mention:
Aldo Rios (University of Manitoba), with A. Costamagna.
Contribution of soybean aphid alates to colony fitness under predation.
Pest Management
Winner:
Tina Dancau (CABI, Switzerland), with T. Haye, P. Mason, and D. Gillespie.
Mortality factors affecting the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) in continental Europe: a preliminary life table analysis.
Honourable mention:
Jon Williams (University of Guelph), with H. Earl and R. Hallett.
Laboratory investigations of swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii, oviposition and damage symptoms to canola.
Posters
Winner:
Sabrina Rochefort (McGill University), with T. Wheeler.
Taxonomy and diversity of Parapiophila (Diptera: Piophilidae).
Honourable mention:
Sarah Loboda (McGill University), with C. Ernst and C. Buddle.
Yellow pan traps versus pitfall traps: best monitoring tool for ground-dwelling arthropods in the Arctic.
What is a President’s Prize worth?
Sabrina Rochefort – winner of the President’s Prize for best poster
At the recent ESC/ESS JAM in Saskatoon, not only were we treated to some great science and camaraderie, but the beloved institution of the President’s Prize sessions for student talks and posters provided some of the most stimulating and exciting times. This was my first year not being in the competition, and I would like to offer my views on the subject.
1) The President’s Prize encourages excellence: Students are definitely motivated to deliver polished and professional presentations in the hopes that their efforts will be recognized publicly. This reaches further than the conference, to encourage students to vet their talks and posters within their laboratories and departments in formal and informal settings in order to make the best presentation possible. This can only be a good thing.
2) The recognition is important: this prize, although modest financially, has amazing value as something to put on one’s CV. This enhances the career prospects of the winners and also the recognition that conference travel for students is worth funding within departments. Again, the value of this prize reaches much further than the conference, as students returning with the tangible benefits of a prize winning talk encourages others to make it a priority to attend and give an excellent talk next year.
The President’s Prize and the more recent innovation of the Graduate Student Showcase are thus valuable to the society as a whole. By encouraging and recognizing the efforts of students who attend our conferences to present well-polished research results, we promote excellence in scientific communication. We can all learn from the skill and innovation of these students!
With all of this in mind, I would like to make some recommendations:
1) For every conference, pre-publish the scoring rubric to be used by the judges. This will ensure that students entering a talk or poster know what points they have to hit to make their talk a candidate for the prize. These rubrics should not penalize creativity on the part of the students or discretion on the part of the judges, but should ensure that there is a baseline for what is expected.
2) At every conference, formally recognize runners-up in every session: It costs nothing but a bit of extra time during award presentation, but the chance to bestow recognition on a few more students should not go to waste. Many sessions have many excellent talks, and to send an excellent presenter home with nothing does no one any good. It has been a bit hit and miss in recent years at ESC meetings with regards to runners-up, and I think it should be the case that every conference includes this important recognition.
3) Send all competitors home with the judging sheets. This is a bit more onerous on the part of the judges, but the judges can definitely jot down some notes on their scoring sheet and show the tally for how well the talk lived up to the rubric. This is important to show that the criteria used to score the talks informed the decision. More importantly, it allows students to see how well their talk met the judges’ expectations, and to improve their presentations for the next year. This has been done at a couple of ESC meetings over the last few years and as far as I know, students found the feedback they got very valuable and were able to use it to improve their science communication skills.
Thanks to Mile Zhang for photos of the poster competitors, and to Catherine Scott for helpful suggestions. Congratulations to all this year’s winners, runners-up, and competitors!
ESC/ESS JAM 2014 Day 1 photos
Drop in on your friends…Before it’s too late!