Search Results

Ella Speers Photo credited to Aimee Lew Mother Nature is capable of remarkable phenomena across every biosphere, including vivid and emotive displays, colourations, diversity and interactions. However, a newly hatched fledgling pushing intact eggs out of its own nest is a sight to behold. Cuckoo birds, Cuclidae, are parasites scorning the systematic operation of nature. Through years of evolution manifesting into cheating tactics, they have freed themselves from the cost of parental care by inflicting this on a host species instead. A cuckoo will lay an egg in a host species’ nest when vacant to trick it into raising its young as part of its own brood, thus escaping the energetic expense of parental care. However, nature is not that straightforward. The cuckoo’s cheating tactics are mirrored by the host species’ own evolutionary leaps in an attempt to rid itself of the parasitic cuckoo and the expense of raising its young. It is a cyclical process, a typical pattern in nature. Over periods of evolutionary time, the cuckoo will evolve an adaptation to trick the host, the host will develop a defence to block this, the cuckoo will create another adaptation, only to again be overcome by the host, and on the cycle goes. These rapid and intensive cycles of co-evolutions by parasite and host in response to selection pressure from the other are the epitome of an evolutionary arms race [1]. Cuckoo Trickery Versus Tuning The cheating mechanisms that cuckoos use to inflict a host bird into raising its own young have earned them the title of obligate brood parasites. This parasitism has evolved independently three separate times within the cuckoo family [2]. The parasitic adaptations that a cuckoo uses to exploit its host are a form of either trickery or tuning. Cuckoo trickery includes an exhaustive list of remarkable adaptations that have arisen to overcome host defences, such as host-egg mimicry and developing stronger egg shells that are resistant to damage by the host. Trickery ultimately aims to evade the hosts’ defences and to trick the host into raising the cuckoo egg as one of their own [2]. In comparison, tuning strategies ensure that the cuckoo egg and subsequent chick development are suited to the host species’ life history strategies to give it the best chance of survival [2]. A range of specific adaptations is required to ensure cuckoo development is conducive to the host's niche, such as its incubation and provisioning strategies, which have evolved to suit the host’s life history, not the cuckoo’s [2]. Cuckoo Trickery in Accessing Host Nests The first example of trickery exhibited by a cuckoo is exhibited by its access to hosts’ nests. A female may invest a significant amount of time observing a host bird from a concealed perch [2]. This will give the cuckoo insight into how the host behaves, including its usual feeding patterns and when the nest is not guarded. Raising parasitic young is extremely expensive as it reduces the clutch size and success of the fledglings of the host’s brood [3]. To reduce the chances of their nests being seen and therefore exploited, host species employ a range of strategies which may include nesting further from sites where cuckoos have been seen to cryptically perch [2], concealing their nests [4], secretive behaviour, or unpredictable laying; methods which make timing the parasitism difficult for the cuckoo. Perhaps the most elaborate method of avoiding cuckoos, hosts may alter their nest architecture by narrowing the entrance tubes into their nests, so the bigger cuckoos will struggle to enter [5]. Host Nest Defence A host may attack an approaching cuckoo through mobbing [2]. A previous study by Welbergen and Davies [6], shows that hosts who mob approaching cuckoos more aggressively were less likely to become parasitized, giving hosts an incentive to attack intruders they recognize as cuckoos. Cuckoos aim to remain as cryptic as possible, as other hosts in the area will increase their attendance at their nests and rates of egg rejection when cuckoos have been identified in their areas [7], hence cuckoos may be inclined to avoid species they remember as being strong mobbers to avoid injury risk and attracting predators or other brood parasites [8]. To overcome hosts’ nest defences, cuckoos employ secretive behaviour and rapid laying [2]. They also benefit from plumage that resembles predatory hawk species [9], as predator resemblance allows cuckoos fitness benefits through attack avoidance by hosts [10]. Furthermore, to counter the ability of visual recognition that host species may possess, some cuckoo species have polymorphic female plumage – the existence of two or more different colour morphs over different time periods. By employing this strategy and essentially changing their appearance, cuckoos become unidentifiable to hosts and can therefore exploit hosts’ resources to raise their young. Egg Trickery While cuckoo trickery for access to host nests shows immense strategic evolution, cuckoo egg trickery is an even more complex and sophisticated mechanism. Host adaptations (egg rejection) select for parasite resistance (egg mimicry) in an intricate co-evolutionary arms race [11]. The similarity of eggs between the common cuckoo and those of hosts was first noted in the mid-18th century [12]. Research since this period has revealed that some species can recognize their own eggs. In a nest of eggs, a host’s egg may serve as a reference for the egg type that is the correct one (its own), and hence provide a template for deducing which are foreign [13]. Species of birds with no history of cuckoo parasitism showed no rejection of foreign eggs, as demonstrated in Davies and Brooke’s 1988 study [7]. In comparison, previous hosts of cuckoo parasitism did reject eggs that were unlike their own. Davies and Brooke here show that egg rejection by hosts evolves in response to cuckoo parasitism. Conversely, but also contributing to the arms race of evolution, cuckoo egg mimicry evolves because of host egg rejection [2]. For example, reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) reject eggs that differ from their own, so their cuckoo parasite produces a mimetic egg. Strengthening this concept but through the opposite mechanism, dunnocks (Prunella modularis) do not discriminate on different eggs; hence, their cuckoo host lays a non-mimetic egg in these nests. Cuckoo Chicks Favour Their Own Survival Some cuckoo species will eject the host’s eggs or kill the host’s young to enhance their own survival success [14]. While having an egg size that closely matches the size of the host’s eggs, these cuckoos, known as ejectors, parasitize hosts that are smaller than themselves to allow a newly hatched cuckoo to push the unhatched host eggs out of the nest [14]. Ejector cuckoos have, therefore, evolved a smaller egg for their body size to facilitate this phenomenon. Darwin [15] suggested the small egg size was advantageous in both deceiving foster parents into thinking it was their own egg, and hatching within a shorter period to promote the pushing of other unhatched eggs out of the nest. Chick Trickery It has been a great mystery to zoologists as to why hosts of cuckoo parasitism exhibit discrimination against eggs unlike their own, yet some will accept a cuckoo chick upon hatching [2]. In species where the cuckoo is a non-ejector and is raised alongside the host’s brood, this is especially hard to understand, since a cuckoo chick tends to be larger and have a different gape flange colour when compared to the host’s fledglings. These two cues of size and colour are precisely what is employed in egg discrimination [7], so it is difficult to understand why these cues cannot be used to differentiate between chicks too. A theory for the acceptance of chicks, proposed by Davies and Brooke [7], is that eggs look the same during the incubation period. In contrast, chicks change dramatically in appearance from day to day. Identifying a foreign chick may pose a challenge in a clutch of constantly changing chicks. In hosts that do reject foreign young, co-evolutionary theory accurately predicts that cuckoo parasites have evolved a visual mimicry of the host’s chicks’ nestling down, skin colour and gape flanges [2] that are employed to prevent cuckoo chicks from being rejected. Cuckoo Tuning to Host Life Histories Tuning of a cuckoo egg and the subsequent chick is a recent proposal that requires more research. Current findings suggest that tuning first begins with host choice, explicitly finding a host that has a suitable size, diet, and nest type for a cuckoo chick. For ejector cuckoo chicks, the nest cannot be too deep to prevent the successful ejection of the host eggs [16]. Parasitic cuckoos are likely to need cognitive ability to allow them to remember the spatial and temporal availability of suitable host nests [17], hence females of the Molothrus species exhibit a larger hippocampus region than males [18]. A suite of adaptations ensures cuckoos hatch before the host’s eggs so that ejectors can expel them from the nest. For non-ejectors, hatching first allows a head-start in development, and hence a greater chance of out-competing host chicks [2]. In cuckoo chicks, tuning requires a further suite of adaptations that differ from the egg’s. These will vary, depending on whether a chick is an ejector. In ejectors, the cuckoo is raised alone and receives all the food its host parent brings to the nest. It therefore simply needs to ensure the host brings enough food, although the usual host-specific fledgling strategies of begging for more food cannot be employed, as there are no host chicks to learn these off [2]. To compensate for this, a cuckoo chick will employ extravagant begging signals to increase host provisioning, such as rapid begging [19] and wing patches to stimulate extra gapes in the nest [20]. Non-ejector cuckoo chicks can use the other chicks to solicit food, so they tolerate the host’s chicks. However, they then have to compete for this on delivery [2]. Through tuning strategies, a cuckoo in a nest of host fledglings will take the most food by stretching higher, begging most intensively, and manipulating the hosts into favouring it over their own young [21]. Cuckoo brood parasitism is an extraordinary phenomenon that has fascinated zoologists for centuries. Trickery, the refined art of cheating, involves adaptations evolved to counter host defences, leading to remarkable co-evolutionary arms races in both parasite and host to overcome the other. Tuning may allow hosts to escape parasitism through evolutionary changes in their life-history strategies as cuckoos learn them. However, these are likely to occur on significant temporal scales, and immediate behavioural defences may suffice. Obligate brood parasitism yields an interaction between two species that is a wonder of the animal kingdom. References R. Dawkins, J. R. Krebs, J. Maynard Smith, R. Holliday, “Arms races between and within species,” vol. 205, no. 1161, pp. 489–511, Sep. 1979, doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. N. B. Davies, “Cuckoo adaptations: trickery and tuning,” vol. 284, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00810.x. M. Hauber and K. Montenegro, “What are the costs of raising a brood parasite? Comparing host parental care at parasitized and non-parasitized broods,” vol. 10, pp. 1–9, Jan. 2002, Accessed: Aug. 21, 2022. [Online]. C. Moskat and M. Honza, “Effect of nest and nest site characteristics on the risk of cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism in the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus,” Ecography, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 335-341, Jun, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00289.x S. Freeman, “Egg variability and conspecific nest parasitism in the Ploceus weaverbirds,” vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 49–53, 1988, doi: 10.1080/00306525.1988.9633694. J. A. Welbergen and N. B. Davies, “Strategic variation in mobbing as a front line of defense against brood parasitism,” vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 235–240, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.12.041. N. B. Davies and M. de L. Brooke, “Cuckoos versus reed warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations,” vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 262–284, 1988, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80269-0. J. N. M. Smith, P. Arcese, I. G. McLean, “Age, experience, and enemy recognition by wild song sparrows,” Behav Ecol Sociobiol, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 101-106, Feb, 1984. R. B. Payne, “Interspecific Communication Signals in Parasitic Birds,” vol. 101, no. 921, pp. 363–375, Sep. 1967, doi: 10.1086/282504. O. Krüger, N. B. Davies, M. D. Sorenson, “The evolution of sexual dimorphism in parasitic cuckoos: sexual selection or coevolution?” vol. 274, no. 1617, pp. 1553–1560, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0281. J. J. Soler, J. M. Aviles, M. Soler, A. P. Moller, “Evolution of host egg mimicry in a brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo,” vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 551–563, Aug. 2003, doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00209.x. K. Schulze-Hagen, B.G. Stokke, T. R. Birkhead, “Reproductive biology of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus: early insights, persistent errors and the acquisition of knowledge,” J Ornithol 150, 1–16 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-008-0340-8 S. I. Rothstein, “Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: Do birds know their own eggs?” vol. 23, pp. 268–278, May 1975, doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(75)90075-5. O. Krüger and N. B. Davies, “The evolution of egg size in the brood parasitic cuckoos,” vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 210–218, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1093/beheco/arg104. C. Darwin, “The origin of species by means of natural selection,” 1859, London: John Murray. T. Grim, “Constraints on host choice: why do parasitic birds rarely exploit some common potential hosts?” vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 508–518, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x. A. Baddeley, “Elements of episodic–like memory in animals,” vol. 356, no. 1413, pp. 1483–1491, Sep. 2001, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0947. J. C. Reboreda, N. S. Clayton, A. Kacelnik, “Species and sex differences in hippocampus size in parasitic and non-parasitic cowbirds,” vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 505–508, 1996, doi: 10.1097/00001756-199601310-00031. R. M. Kilner, D. G. Noble, N. B. Davies, “Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo,” vol. 397, no. 6721, pp. 667–672, Feb. 1999, doi: 10.1038/17746. K. D. Tanaka and K. Ueda, “Horsfield’s Hawk-Cuckoo Nestlings Simulate Multiple Gapes for Begging,” Apr. 2005, doi: 10.1126/science.1109957. T. Redondo, “Exploitation of host mechanisms for parental care by avian brood parasites,” vol. 3, pp. 235–297, Jan. 1993, Accessed: Aug. 26, 2022. [Online].

Danielle Lucas Bryde's whale in the Hauraki Gulf. Photo by the author. Sixteen Bryde's whales are alive today that would have otherwise succumbed to vessel strike in Tīkapa Moana had the Hauraki Gulf Transit Protocol not been introduced in September 2014. Many individuals are stunned to learn that we have some incredible marine species including Cetaceans such as Brydes whales (Balaenoptera brydei) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in our very own backyard, Tīkapa Moana (Hauraki Gulf), Tāmaki Makaurau. Currently Bryde’s whales, pronounced 'broo-des’ are endangered, classified as Nationally Critical with only an estimated 135 left in the Tīkapa Moana population. Bryde’s whales are a year-round resident in the gulf as part of only a handful of global whale populations not to partake in migrations. Unfortunately, it was discovered that ship-strike by vessels ≥70 m were killing on average 2.4 whales per annum in Tīkapa Moana, and between 1996 and 2014, 44 Bryde’s whales died in the Hauraki Gulf [1]. “85% of whale deaths in the gulf were definitely or most likely the result of injuries sustained during a collision” [1]. In a small, isolated population of only 135 individuals, this rate of mortality is unsustainable and would likely contribute to a collapse of the population if protocols were not put in place to interfere. Lethal ship strike is a relatively new example of human-wildlife conflict and is especially threatening to large cetaceans. Bryde’s whales typically spend more than 80% of their time in the top 10 metres of the ocean [1]. This makes them incredibly susceptible to strikes as the average draft (height of the part of the ship which is underwater) of a vessel is about 8.4m. A vessel sailing at 15 knots (around 28 kmh-1) has an approximately 80% chance of killing a whale when they collide, whereas at 8.6kt (~16kph-1) this was reduced to 20% [4]. When a vessel is travelling at a speed above 10kt (~18.5kph-1), the potential risk of ship strike is measurably increased. The Hauraki Gulf embayment has an area of around 4000km². It is the gateway into Aotearoa’s largest port, Ports of Auckland, and there are three major shipping channels: Colville channel, Jellicoe channel, and Craddock channel, whereby vessels will enter the gulf en route to the port (Fig. 1) [2]. Figure 1: Map and location of the study site, the Hauraki Gulf. The Ports of Auckland is located within Auckland city, shown by the black dot. Dotted lines indicate where the voluntary Transit Prorocal comes into effect In September 2013, Ports of Auckland introduced the Hauraki Gulf Transit Protocol for commercial shipping. This is a voluntary protocol in which vessels slow down to 10kt as they travel throughout the gulf. Mandatory measures require the lengthy formation of laws and regulations and enforcement, which takes time, money and resources [2]. In an interview with Dr Rochelle Constantine, a researcher at the Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, and a crucial member of the research team whose work contributed to the implementation of this protocol, Dr Constantine states that in regard to this voluntary speed reduction, “I’m really proud that every day the ships and their crew go slow. Even though many of them have no idea why, it’s just the new normal.” Bryde’s whale population distribution in Tīkapa Moana was mapped from October 2014 to September 2016. The shipping traffic was also monitored in the gulf from October 2014 to September 2016, using Automatic Identification System (AIS) shipping data which provides information about a vessel according to a unique Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number (Fig. 2). Figure 2: a) Density of ship transits per 100m2 grid cell with a search radius of 100 m. b) Sighting per unit effort (SPUE) of Bryde's whales in the Hauraki Gulf, October 2014 - September 2016. The values represent the chances of seeing a whale within a 1,500 m radius. The median speed of ≥70 m long vessels transiting through Tīkapa Moana was 10 kt in 2014–2015 (range = 1–27 kt; IQ = 9–12.4 kt), and 10.2 kt in 2015–2016 (range = 1–26.9 kt; IQ = 9–11.7 kt); these speeds represent a 25% decrease from the 13.2 kt reported from July 2012 – June 2013 prior to the implementation of the Transit Protocol [1] (Fig 3). Figure 3: Median speeds of vessels 70 m in length transiting through the Hauraki Gulf in a) July 2012 - June 2013 (from Riekkola, 2013), October 2014 - September 2015, and c) October 2015 - September 2016, calculated within 250 x 250 grid cell. At lower travel speeds through the gulf, the risk of death via direct strike or hydrodynamic forces that pull the whale toward the ship are considerably reduced [3]. The voluntary Hauraki Gulf Transit Protocol recommendation to reduce speeds to ~10 kts directly resulted in a ~25% decrease in ship speeds, thereby nearly halving the threat of lethal ship strike to Bryde’s whales within two years of implementation [1]. Since the Protocol was introduced in 2013, there has not been a single report of a Bryde’s whale death in Tīkapa Moana caused by ship-strike. No vessel has reported on any collisions resulting in injury either. “As long as they continue to go around that 10kts, the risk to the whales of vessel strike mortality is very low,” says Dr Rochelle Constantine. Effective environmental management is imperative to decreasing the threats to biodiversity [3]. When asked how it feels to know you’ve made a positive impact on the population of Bryde’s whales in Tīkapa Moana Dr Rochelle Constantine responded: “It was really a collective that found this solution, the thing I think was most important, for me as a scientist, is that it was science informed. Conservation solutions are never about one person, and we made a real conscious decision in the beginning to have an inclusive process, bringing lots of people together who saw this issue through different eyes, industry, legal, scientists, government and Mana Whenua. I’m proud of us, and it was a really good example of how to get conservation wins.” Dr Constantine mentioned that there will be an abundance estimate of the whale population done next year, a decade since the Hauraki Gulf Transit Protocol implementation. “There are at least 16 whales alive now that would have been dead, had ships continued with their previous speeds. We are anticipating that the abundance estimate will go up.” The Hauraki Gulf Transit Protocol is a great example of how a small social change can garner incredible results. The next population estimate for Bryde’s whales in Tīkapa Moana will be an imperative statistic that showcases the capacity for effective environmental management by users of the gulf. An increase in the Bryde’s whale population will be an absolute win for conservation efforts. There is no end date on the reduced-speed protocol, and it is now the new normal when entering the gulf. This effort has made a lasting impact on the health of Bryde’s whale populations in Tīkapa Moana. References Constantine, R., Johnson, M., Riekkola, L., Jervis, S., Kozmian-Ledward, L., Dennis, T., Torres, L.G., Aguilar de Soto, N., 2015. Mitigation of vessel-strike mortality of endangered Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 186, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.008. Ebdon, P., Riekkola, L., & Constantine, R. (2020). Testing the efficacy of ship strike mitigation for whales in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Ocean & Coastal Management, 184, 105034. Silber, G.K., Adams, J.D., Bettridge, S., 2012. Vessel operator response to a voluntary measure for reducing collisions with whales. Endanger. Species Res. 17 (3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00434. Vanderlaan, A.S., Taggart, C.T., 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23 (1), 144–156. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00098.x. Figure retrieved from: Ebdon, P., Riekkola, L., & Constantine, R. (2020). Testing the efficacy of ship strike mitigation for whales in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Ocean & Coastal Management, 184, 105034

UoA Scientific Executive Team 2021-2022 A common debate amongst scientists is whether the execution of an idea is more important than the idea itself. Whichever you believe in, the success of this publication is the epitome of the former. With the help of more people than we could list on these pages, the simple idea of creating a scientific publication came to fruition through many hours of dedication by countless people. As we close out 2022 with this last issue, we would like to reflect on the past two years of this publication, tell a little bit about its history, and thank the people who have supported it along its way. UoA Scientific is an evolution of a monthly science magazine produced by the Science Students' Association in 2020 called Moonshot, which was led by Struan Caughey and written by Nina de Jong, Caleb Todd, and Louisa Ren, all founders of UoA Scientific. We realised the potential a high-quality publication could have, and in 2021 we founded UoA Scientific – to promote open science communication and give students an avenue to share their research and passion. We began the club with little to no knowledge of how to produce a publication, and our execs wrote all the articles in our first edition. The first issue was designed in Canva as opposed to the much more sophisticated Adobe Illustrator we use now, and we stayed up to 4 am to complete the initial design. It was truly exciting to print out the first test copy of the Scientific the following day (see photos below), and we had a feeling that we were onto something special (If you have a copy of the first edition, hold onto it as it will become a coveted collector's item in the future!). After much debate on which type of paper to use, how to lay out the articles, and finally securing funding from the Faculty of Science, we published our first issue in May 2021 with eight articles. The aim of the publication has always been to bridge the gap between research/thought-provoking scientific topics and students. Specifically, our goal is to give students an avenue to showcase their research to a broader audience and facilitate discussions on complex issues in science. The level of praise and excitement we received from our first issue from students and staff was surprising and encouraging. It is a testament to the passion and willingness to share ideas in the science community, something we want to empower through our publication. Many copies disappeared into student and staff offices that day. We had always envisioned growing the club to more than five executives, and by the time we had published our first edition, our team had grown to nine. Shortly after the publishing of our first ever issue, we expanded, bringing on board Jasmine Gunton, Gene Tang and Stella Huggins. With a larger team and new execs that brought about much-needed skills, the quality of our publication improved immensely. The rest of 2021 saw some fantastic issues, exciting recognition, and a realisation that we needed more hands on deck yet again. At the end of 2021, we recruited Aimee Lew, Celina Turner and Sarah Moir. In 2022, we continued to make leaps and bounds. Creative Director Gene, and Marketing Coordinator Aimee, both made strides in the visual design of our publication, providing original art for all of our covers this year. Our writing coordination team for 2022 (Louisa, Nina and Sarah) has also made enormous contributions in refining our guest writer process, and are continuing to refine it right up until we hand over to 2023’s executive team. Our quote-on-quote leadership section (we’re a flat-structured club in reality!) consisting of: Alex, our treasurer, Jasmine, our secretary, and Stella, our president — have worked to coordinate with external, and internal partners, as well as the rest of the team, to make our shared vision for Scientific a cohesive reality. We’ve just finished up the recruitment process for the future of 2023, and our recurring theme of growth continues. We can’t wait to announce the team of a hefty 14 team members. Looking back at the first issue, it pales in comparison to the quality of the publications we produce today. This publication would not be a reality if it weren't for the countless people that have supported us over the last two years. We would like to take these last few pages of the year to thank each and every one. The publication is nothing without its writers. We firstly thank all the guest writers who have written for us about their research or passion: You-Rong F. Wang, Toby Elliot, John Bailie, Hazel Watson-Smith, Emelina Glavaš, Sophie Piesse, Liam Quinn, Kevin Stitely, Maira Fessardi, Alicia Anderson, Ella Speers, Max Dang Vu, Anne Newmarch, Lucas Tan, Sheeta Mo, Eugene In, Nargiss Taleb, Isla Christensen, Katherine McLean, Steph Claridge, Angeline Xiao, Jae Min Seo, Danielle Lucas, and Milly Darragh. This publication would also not be possible without the help and funding from the Faculty of Science and the University of Auckland staff. In no particular order, we would like to thank: The Faculty of Science, in particular: John Hosking, Linda Thompson, Glenda Haines, Hana Mata'u, Duncan McGillivray, Douglas Elliffe, Grace Manabat, Holly Honeysett, Joel McGeorge, Tatiane Jacobs, Yue Zhang, and Irene van Schalkwyk. Staff members and students of UoA, and experts who gave up their time to speak with us for interview articles: Geoff Willmott, Cristian Calude, Rochelle Constantine, Brad Coombes, Ariel-Michaiah Heswell, and Rosie Bosworth. Members of the UoA Library staff who aided us on our copyright journey: Suzanne Acharya, and Berit Anderson. The Science Students' Association for the generous and routine use of their facilities for our launch events, in particular, 2022 President Dania Shafiq. Staff at The Auckland War Memorial Museum, Tāmaki Paenga Hira, for their mentorship and advice on developing the vision of Scientific: Charlotte Milne, Ainslie Dewe, Bhakti Patel and Sarah Knowles. We would also like to thank the outgoing execs, Struan Caughey, Stella Huggins, Nina de Jong, Louisa Ren, Celina Turner, Alex Chapple, and Caleb Todd. All have been here since the early days and have been instrumental in making this publication a reality. We are looking forward to having you back as guest writers in the future. Finally, we want to thank you, the readers, for picking this publication up. We hope you've enjoyed reading this issue, and consider writing for us in the future! We can't wait to see you again next year. Sincerely, UoA Scientific Executive Team 2021-2022

V2E2-Cover V2E2-Foreword V2E2-29 V2E2-Cover 1/32 Series 2 Edition 2 Volume 1's final inclusion, we have our summer school edition. Sleek light and even more fascinating than ever + made by our 2022 executive team! Download

Our latest issue Our third edition of the year, read all about epidemic modelling, quantum logic clocks and imu knees. Read Now Latest articles Academic Going Cuckoo: Parasites of the Avian World Academic The Sword of Damocles —Virus, Bacteria & the History of Pandemics Academic Conquest of Spaces — A Review of James Webb Space Telescope’s First Five Images Academic Voluntary Speed restriction in Tīkapa Moana; saving endangered Bryde’s Whales Explained (SPECIAL ARTICLE) The Journey So Far: Looking Back on Two Years of UoA Scientific Academic Have We Got Alzheimer’s All Wrong? Research Fraud Threatens Science Interview The Silent Epidemic Explained Maurice & Katia Krafft: Lives Dedicated to Volcanology View posts Home: Latest News Who are we? We are a group of University of Auckland students who, at the beginning of 2021, wanted to solve several problems: At our university there was no platform where, having completed your research, you could publish that research to share with your fellow students. There was no academically-focused magazine that allowed guest writers to s ubmit scientific journalism. We lacked a centralised place to promote our exemplary students, give all students a publication to aspire toward, and provide experience with academic writing. This is where UoA Scientific came in. Now with 10 executive members, the scope of the publication has grown well beyond what we envisioned. We have attracted praise from prominent figures such as particle physicist Professor Brian Cox - a world-renowned science communicator, and host of the "Wonders Of..." TV series. ​ We currently publish four times a year. One issue is published each half semester, and a further summer issue is released during the summer break. Link to our page!

Scientific-October-2021-COVER-1 Scientific-October-2021-COVER-2 Scientific-October-2021-29 Scientific-October-2021-COVER-1 1/32 October edition Our fourth and final planned edition for this academic year! Aesthetically a master piece and academically even better, have a read! Download