Birmingham New Street, with its subterranean platforms accessed by narrow concrete gullets, must be one of the ugliest and most unpleasant major railway stations in Britain. It’s also, thanks to the redevelopment work currently being carried out, one of the most confusing for the traveller who only occasionally passes through. Ugly and unpleasant I can handle if it functions well: but ugly and unpleasant AND confusing is not good. It’s a huge contrast to Milton Keynes station which I went through last week on the way to Chester, where the open, airy platforms look out onto embankments covered in wild flowers (see the photo above). While waiting for the train at Milton Keynes I spotted butterflies and bees visiting flowers only feet from passing high-speed engines.
As I start this post I’m sitting on Platform 9A at Birmingham waiting for a train at 0949 to Nottingham where I’m attending the British Ecological Society’s Macroecology Special Interest Group’s annual conference. In fact I should be on the train which left platform 12A at 0919, but trying to find the unsignposted 12A, followed by a detour to pick up a coffee, meant that I missed the train by about a minute. Not to worry, gives me an opportunity to rant about Birmingham New Street station.
The BES Macroecology SIG has been established for three years and I blogged about the inaugural meeting in London back in 2012. I missed last year’s meeting in Sheffield so thought I’d make a special effort to get to the Nottingham event this year, even though it involves heading west (to Birmingham) to travel north (to Nottingham).
Day 1 of the meeting started with the first of two keynote addresses by Catherine Graham from Stony Brook University. Cathy focused on her work on that most charismatic of flower visitors, the hummingbirds. In the first talk she dealt with the importance of thinking about phylogenetic scale when conducting analyses. Lots of thought provoking ideas and a huge amount of information to digest.
As I’m speaking on the second day I could relax and listen to some interesting talks by established and early career researchers, and PhD students, most of whom have been given 7 minutes (!) to present their work. It’s been a challenge to whittle the final part of the talk I gave in Copenhagen last week into such a short format, but we’ll see how I get on tomorrow. Highlights of day 1 for me included Joe Bailey talking about urbanisation, climate and alien vascular plants in the UK; Nova Mieszkowska’s work on inter-tidal species; Sive Finaly on whether Madagascan tenrecs are an example of an adaptive radiation (answer = “maybe”); and Guy Harrington on studying fossils in a macroecological manner. But really but all the talks were good and I learned something from each of them.
As I mentioned in that post back in 2012, defining “macroecology” is problematic and there are still those who see it as synonymous with biogeography. Perhaps one difference is that biogeography has traditionally tended to focus on patterns (e.g. how species richness changes as one moves form the poles to the tropics) whereas macroecology also seeks to explain those patterns in terms of processes, using very sophisticated statistical and mapping approaches. But even that fails to fully appreciate biogeography which has a tradition of also trying to infer processes (for example Joseph Hooker’s 19th century work on the distribution of plants included hypothetical explanations), though without the modern analytical tools that are available to the macroecologist. It’s a debate that will no doubt go on, though perhaps it’s a sterile one. Does it matter what we call it as long as the science is sound?