What’s the Point?

Introduction_img_1

What do you study that? It’s a common question, and one that’s often hard to answer. Some subjects have obvious and immediate uses (medicinal drug development is an obvious one) but others have less clear goals. Much, if not most, of science proceeds through slow increments building on past knowledge, without any grander desire than to find out why something is the way it is. Even discoveries that have revolutionised our lives were seen as small curiosities when first discovered. When asked about the use of electricity following its discovery Michael Faraday is said (erroneously) to have claimed “…one day you can tax it”.

Ecology is one area where the immediate uses are often hard to pin down. Surveys of animals are lovely, but what really is the point? In these economically-straitened times such questions demand an answer, if only because without one those surveys will no longer be funded. A recent survey by Marine Scotland brilliantly highlights their importance, discovering new species and new habitat which has major implications for fishing in the area.

They report the presence of extensive deep sea coral reefs and at least two new species of chemosynthetic clam which is a strong indication of the presence of cold seeps. Cold seeps are areas in the deep ocean where chemicals seep from the crust into the water. They were first discovered in 1983 and use hydrogen sulphide, rather than sunlight, as the basis of their ecosystem. The seep found by Marine Scotland is the first in near-UK waters and only the third in the North-East Atlantic, so it is a significant (and fantastic!) discovery.

The report also found evidence of extensive habitat loss due to bottom trawling. Bottom trawling is arguably one of the most destructive forms of fishing, taking not just the target fish but also any habitat that dares to rise above the sea bed. Rocks, sponges and corals all get caught and what is left behind is a barren plateau that can take years to recover. Due to the presence of the rare habitats found by the survey, as well as the clear evidence of fishing activity in the area, the report strongly recommended closure of fishing grounds in the survey area.

No one knew what, if anything, they would find when they left shore. They could have found nothing of importance but instead they found a type of habitat that has not been found in the region before and at least two new species; information that has led to commercially-significant recommendations.

This is the result of just one of the thousands of surveys done each year. Some of those surveys may not be useful now, some may be (like this one), and some may have a use in the future than can’t be predicted. Surveys aren’t glamorous, but they are extremely useful, and they are a perfect example of why not having narrow goals isn’t always a bad thing.

Author

Sarah Hearne: hearnes[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

www.noaa.gov

Back from the dead

525px-Alice_par_John_Tenniel_09What do you associate with the word “extinction”?

I think of death, dinosaurs, dodos, desolation and despair (well maybe the last ones are a bit overly dramatic but I was feeling the alliterative vibe). No matter what your initial reactions may be, I think the concepts of extinction being irreversible and ultimately a “bad thing” would feature in most of our reactions to the word. It turns out that neither of these initial associations is necessarily true.

Extinctions are not always bad. It is all too easy to overlook their important role in shaping the evolution of life, a topic explored in a fascinating exhibition now on at London’s Natural History Museum. Extinction is arguably just as important as speciation in the evolution of our ecosystems so to think of it in a completely negative light is misguided.

However, extinction’s negative connotations are still very much justified. When humans mess with “natural” extinction trends is where we encounter problems. It’s a sad but true cliché that where humans go extinctions swiftly follow. Humans were either the direct cause or a major contributing factor in a depressingly long list of extinctions; from dodos and Tasmanian tigers to passenger pigeons and giant moas. When the last individuals of these species were either killed or lived out their days in captive isolation they marked one more reduction to global biodiversity and another page in the annals of the history of human stupidity and greed. Yet their extinction pronouncements may not be as final as they seem…

On the back of a recent TED special event, de-extinction is receiving increasing levels of attention and interest. The key concept arises from the intriguing difference between individual and genetic extinction; if DNA is salvageable then the possibility of raising species from the dead remains open. It’s a very attractive idea; extract some DNA, conduct some genetic jiggery pokery (can’t you just see my genetic expertise) to create viable stem cells or embryos, find a living relative of your target species and hey presto; an elephant gives birth to a woolly mammoth. The difficulties are found within the jiggery pokery steps; how to get enough good quality DNA to create viable stem cells and whether you can make a “pure” embryo of your species or create some kind of hybrid between living and extinct species. Despite the difficulties, the project to revive passenger pigeons is already underway with other candidate species including woolly mammoths, sabre-toothed cats and the great auk waiting in the wings.

The idea of coming face to face with a giant elephant bird or having your very own pet dodo is exciting to say the least – think of the revenue of a zoo which offered rides on a woolly mammoth! Yet de-extinction is a veritable minefield of ethical, ecological and legal debate. One of the main concerns, which I share, is the worry that even remote chances of successful de-extinction could detract from conservation efforts to save very much alive but critically endangered species. If we lose living species we can’t just 3D-print carbon copies and plonk them back into their habitats. De-extinction should be seen as a difficult, expensive and ultimately very risky last-resort measure to regain lost biodiversity, not an alternative to protecting what we have now.

Conservation issues aside, if by any chance we did manage to successfully re-create an extinct animal what happens next? Would it just become an expensive sideshow attraction at some zoo or, perhaps, have a glittering movie-star career (creating employment for the sabre-toothed cat animal trainers of tomorrow)? There are arguments that, with mass-scale de-extinction and subsequent successful breeding, new populations of revived species could be re-wilded back into their natural environments and help to restore ecological functioning. It sounds great but, given our chequered history of ecosystem meddling through species introductions it’s difficult to see how we could accurately predict or control what would happen if we introduced genetically engineered species into habitats which, most likely, have undergone extensive ecological change in that species’ absence.

De-extinction research is undoubtedly fascinating from a purely technological and scientific point of view. Furthermore, the prospect of reclaiming species from the past is sure to excite the latent Jurassic Park Ranger career aspirations of all of us. However, the controversies surrounding the process are well-justified and it’s clear that we have a long way to go before booking our next woolly mammoth safari holiday.

Still, perhaps the phrase “dead as a dodo” does not have as final connotations as we once thought…

Author

Sive Finlay: sfinlay[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

Wikimedia commons

Bringing our perceptions closer to reality

mmw_womenscience0716This blog post was originally written and published here on the SoapBox Science blog. The Soapbox Science event showcases UK women in science to inspire the next generation of scientists by making science fun and accessible. This year it will take place on Friday 5th July 12-3pm on the Southbank in London. If you’re in the area why not go and take a look?

First a little thought experiment: without over thinking it, list ten top scientists in your field…now, honestly, what percentage of your list are women? Continue reading “Bringing our perceptions closer to reality”

Beasties in the grass

On the 22nd of May, Trinity held its first BioBlitz day where members of the public and all nature enthusiasts alike were invited to see what little beasties they could find around the campus. We decided then to get our own trusty field books and cameras out to see what lurks just outside our department doors!

The most obvious animals to find around the campus are the numerous bird species, including many small passerines that set up territories in the trees outside the department such as this robin and blue tit.

Blue tit
Blue tit
Robin_1
Robin

The birds around campus seem to like to follow the lunchtime behaviour of us humans, such as these blackbirds.

Female Balckbird
Blackbird

However there are lots of tasty invertebrates around the various sports grounds.

Mistle Thrush
Mistle Thrush
Starlings with grubs
Starlings

We confined ourselves to the long grass, however, in our search for inverts finding the usual suspects such as aphids, spiders, Drosophila and ladybirds.

aphids
Aphids
Spirling
Garden Spider
Fly
Drosophila
Ladybird
Two spotted ladybird

We also found nymph froghoppers, a Hemipteran (True Bug) that protects and shields itself by producing a mass of foam.

Cookcoo spit
Froghopper foam

Despite the large amount of non native plants on campus, such as poppies and orchids, pollinators still manage to squeeze out a living on campus as demonstrated by the presence of a seemingly social group of solitary Andrena bees beside the cricket pitch.

Poppy
Poppy
Orchid
Legume
Soliatry Bee sp.
Andrena spp

Finally we searched in what we thought was a lifeless stagnant pond in the back of the department only to find it teeming with daphnia, gammarus and hoglouse.

Pond
Department pond
Daphnia and Hoglouse
Daphnia and Hoglouse

So even in the centre of Dublin a closer look at biodiversity can often surprise you!

Author

Kevin Healy: healyke[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

The Zoology Department BioBlitz Team

Do badgers play Friesian tag?

image001

While there is irrefutable evidence for the transfer of bovine TB between badgers and cattle, the mechanisms of transfer are not clearly documented. In order to reduce such transfer, it is obviously important to understand how infection takes place.

With such questions in mind, data from a study of free-ranging badgers was combined with detailed records of paddock use by cattle. Each study badger was carrying a personal GPS unit on a tailored collar, so their movements could be monitored to within a few meters. The paddock use of the cattle was recorded on a daily basis. The data were combined, using mapping software, such that a daily log could be constructed for badger and cattle activity. Continue reading “Do badgers play Friesian tag?”

May I take your order?

Not_a_Common_Visitor_to_Somerset

My PhD involves studying the foraging behaviour of vultures. So far I’ve done theoretical work and also had the luck to get some second hand empirical data. But I’d like to be able to get some field data first hand. To that end I’m setting off to Swaziland on Saturday with the intention of building a vulture restaurant and a walk-in trap. The first item takes a little explaining. Vultures are carrion feeders, which means their food source is unpredictable, the bird never knows when the next wildebeest is going to drop dead. So they’re quite sensitive to declines in food availability. But a vulture restaurant is a conservation tool that acts as a supplementary feeding station for the birds. The people organizing the restaurant can deposit carrion at the site thereby providing an extra food supply for the vultures. This is done to keep the birds within an area, to feed them during times of food scarcity or in my case to aid in their capture.

Alongside the restaurant we’re going to build a walk-in trap, a simple structure that the birds walk into before we close the door behind them and have a PhD’s worth of data points. Well, it’s not quite that easy. I want to be able to find out to where these birds are foraging at a high temporal resolution so we will be putting GPS tags on the vultures once we capture them. This means some poor soul will be entering the trap and extracting the birds one by one, each animal getting tagged before being released back into the wild. I should stress this has been done before on many occasions and the birds are all freed within minutes without any ill effects.

So far a lot of research done in this area provides us with broad-scale movement patterns. With my finer scale data I’ll hopefully be able to pick out some quite specific aspects of vulture foraging behaviour. Wish me luck!

Author

Adam Kane: kanead@tcd.ie

Photo credit

Wikimedia commons

Biodiversity loss and ecosystem stability

crab-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding how species extinctions affect the stability of ecosystems is fundamental to the prediction of future biodiversity loss and to ensuring the reliable provision of ecosystem services. In a paper published recently in Ecology Letters*, we (researchers from the School of Natural Sciences in Trinity College Dublin and the Trinity Centre for Biodiversity Research, together with collaborators from Northern Ireland, Spain and Switzerland) show that the destabilising effect of biodiversity loss is likely to be considerably greater than thought previously.

Ecosystem stability has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of papers. It occupies a prominent place in both fundamental and applied ecological research. However, ecological stability is regularly touted as a multifaceted and complex concept. This is because there are many different ways in which we can measure the stability of ecosystems. These include, for example, the variability of systems over time or their ability to resist or recover from disturbances. However, in spite of its multifaceted nature, almost all studies focus only on a single measure to characterise ecosystem stability. Further, the few studies that measured more than one component of stability considered them as independent and therefore analysed them separately, in spite of the fact that they are likely to be related to one another.

Using an experimental study done on a marine rocky shore, we examined the effects of the loss of different consumer species, including both predators and their prey, on multiple distinct components of ecological stability simultaneously. We show for the first time that, even though stability is a relatively simple property of ecological communities, different species contribute in different ways to the maintenance of stability. Moreover, our study also demonstrates that the loss of species from ecosystems can modify and even decouple relationships among components of stability. Ignoring the multifaceted nature of stability therefore risks underestimating significantly the potential of perturbations to destabilize ecosystems. In conclusion, our study indicates that we currently underestimate significantly the overall destabilizing effect of biodiversity loss and thus the true scale of the global extinction crisis that we face.

Author

Ian Donohue: ian.donohue@tcd.ie

Photo credit

http://www.howdoeslooklike.com/what-does-crabs-look-like/

A hefty heating bill?

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Toco Toucan (Ramphastos toco) is the largest species in the toucan family but not only that, it has the largest bill relative to body size of all birds. As with most things in Zoology the function of the bill has been hotly debated, even Darwin himself weighed in with an explanation of his own. He thought that the exaggerated size of the bill may have been due to sexual selection. Seems a little extreme though, especially when you consider all the adaptations for flight birds already exhibit (see here for the basics). Why then would natural selection begin to select individuals with heavy large beaks, surely the extra matings acquired due to the size of your “birdhood” would be offset by your reduced capacity for flight. Right?

Well that depends, what if there were other benefits to having this huge bill. Like for example thermoregulation. Like other enlarged body parts used for thermoregulation, like for example the enlarged ears of many desert dwelling mammals, the bill of the toucan is highly vascularised (supplied with blood vessels) and it seems the toucan has the ability to control the amount of blood flowing to the blood vessels around the bill.

Thermoregulation is somewhat of a hot topic (if you’ll pardon the pun), recently there has been some suggestion that the plates and spikes of the Stegosaurus may have been candidates for thermoregulatory function, where they had been previously thought to have been for defence. Similarly and somewhat more bizarrelythe long neck of many animals both extant and extinct has been discussed as a possible means of thermoregulaltion in this wonderful article by Wilkinson and Ruxton (2011).

So the long and the short of it? As with many aspects of the animal kingdom, without wanting to blunt Occam’s razor the simplest answer may not always be correct.

Author

Keith McMahon: mcmahok[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/468.full.pdf

The popularity of bees

714px-Honey_Bee_takes_Nectar

Because my research often uses bees as the study subject, friends and family are always forwarding links to news and culture that concerns these fascinating creatures.  Let me list for you some of my favourites: I found this article about the debate surrounding the ban on neonicotinoids within the EU on twitter.  On a lighter note, a performance group teamed up with a group of monks at Glenstal Abbey to compose a “Song of the bees” based on scientific recordings and data from honeybees.  A friend on facebook sent me this comic, which describes the seeming absurdity of honeybee workers sacrificing themselves for their hives.  Another facebook find was this spoof article which points out that we could probably solve the problem of bee decline if bees privatised.  Finally, friends and family in Philadelphia informed me that Drexel University recently named its new department the BEES department!  That last one is a little deceiving because BEES stands for Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science, so they don’t actually focus on the study of bees.  I think it’s still significant that the department’s acronym features our little buzzing friends though.  In addition to these references, the birthday and Christmas gifts I’ve received over the past three years include bee embroidered hand towels, wine glasses with bees painted on them, a bracelet with a bee charm, and a stuffed bee .

What is apparent from all of these links and articles (and the availability of the plethora of bee paraphernalia my lovely friends and family continue to buy for me), is that bees are incredibly popular right now.  And I can’t help but ask myself, what is the attraction?

My first question was am I just noticing these references more because I started studying bees in the last few years?  Honestly if you asked me to point out the difference between a honeybee and a bumblebee before I went to college, I’m sure I wouldn’t have been able to do it. But it turns out it’s not personal bias, not according to the scientific literature anyway.  The graph below is the result of a search in Web of Science for papers that contain the word “bee” or “bees” in the topic.  Clearly there has been increased interest in bees since the 1940’s.  In the last few years the publications on bees have been especially numerous, for example there were 1796 records in 2012.

graph

Okay, so bees are being studied more.  But why does the public seem to be so intrigued by these organisms? Why do people love bees?

I have a few thoughts- I’ll start with the obvious:

1.) Bees make honey.

Or so many think.  In reality, not all bees make honey.  The honey-like substance that bumblebees produce would not be fit for consumption- they don’t keep their colonies nice and neat like honeybees do, so you’d be likely to get a mouth full of bacteria or bee larvae in your honey if it came from a bumblebee.  But everyone thinks all bees make honey, and after all, honey is delicious.

2.) The social nature of bees.

The average person may not know much about solitary bees or the differences in the life cycles of bee species, but usually they can tell you that honeybees have a queen.  People also commonly know that the queen bee is responsible for producing all the rest of the bees, and that the rest of the bees in the colony will fight to the death to protect her.  I’m not trying to dive too deeply into psychology here, but I think that the apparent altruism of bees attracts people to them and makes them a more sympathetic organism than we would normally consider something with a sting.  People also like the concept of a “superorganism.”

3.) The “busy bee”

If you’ve ever watched a bee in the springtime foraging on a flower it’s clear that they are working hard.  The work ethic of bees is impressive!  I think people like that bees put in a hard day’s work, collecting food for themselves and their brood.  It makes us think kindly of them, the working class insect.

4.) The ecosystem service

Maybe my first three reasons seem a bit silly and have left you unconvinced, so I will end with a more scientific explanation.  We’ve known for some time that bees make excellent pollinators, and pollination is an important ecosystem service.  In 2006 Science published two studies describing declines in pollinators in Europe and North America.  These findings were compounded by the emergence of colony collapse disorder just a year or so later, leading to intense fear that our helpful honeybees were experiencing declines in population that they simply wouldn’t be able to recover from.  The next question was what will be the impact of declining bee populations on food security? Turns out it’s rather significant.  Studies have shown that the global economic value of pollination is over €153 billion.  Furthermore, a study in March demonstrated that honeybees cannot replace the value of pollination services from wild pollinators; we can’t just worry about the honeybees, wild bees are important to increasing yields as well.  Food security is not something we tend to take lightly, so our pollinators have intrinsic value.  This helps explain the incredible media coverage bees have been receiving lately, especially regarding the European ban of neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides that have been shown to be harmful to bees.

I wonder though, how many people know the facts about how important bees are to the ecosystem service of pollination and therefore food security?  How many people really like them because they are fuzzy, make sweet honey, and are hard workers?  I suppose you could argue that it doesn’t matter why people are attracted to bees, it’s positive regardless because it encourages money to be spent on research into why they are declining and how we can conserve their populations.  I think it’s helpful to try to understand why bees have become a sort of flagship species. That way we can better understand what traits cause humans to assign intrinsic value to organisms for future conservation work.

Author

Erin Jo Tiedeken: tiedekee[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

wikimedia commons

Earth day

children_holding_hands_around_the_world1

Monday 22nd April was Earth Day. In schools and offices all around the world people organised events to highlight the importance of the Earth and the harm that climate change, deforestation, and other human impacts are causing.

As an ecologist and someone who cares about conservation I should welcome Earth Day and its relative, Earth Hour, with open arms. Shouldn’t’ I? Maybe, but I really can’t. In fact, I find these sorts of events incredibly frustrating. Implicit within them is the idea that if we spend one day really caring then we can spend the other 364½ how we like.  I know that this is not the intention but I fear it is the reality.

Earth Day is popular with companies trying to improve their ‘green’ image, and it is here I have a big problem. I have no issue with companies trying to improve their green credentials, but improving their image and improving their credentials are not the same thing. How ‘green’ is a company who decides to spend Earth Day extoling the benefits of re-using cups at the coffee machine when the next day they send staff on a ‘training course’ that just happens to be in a hotel in Portugal? Who cares if you encourage everyone to print double-sided if you then require that 1,000-page file to be photocopied five times and then sent to offices all around the country (yes, I am drawing on past experience in these examples!).

I understand that Earth Day, and similar initiatives, try to encourage people to make small changes that are of little consequence in themselves but multiply over many people to make large differences. People are encouraged to turn off lights, the TV, their computer, and so on, when they’re not being used for long periods. The most commonly given reason for doing this is to ‘save you money’. After all, we live in a capitalistic society where money drives many of our decisions and if we can use money to drive lower energy consumption then everyone wins, surely?

Well, no. The problem comes from the rebound effect. If you save money on your heating bill most people don’t just say ‘yippee, I’ve saved money on my heating bill’, they say ‘yippee, I’ll put those savings into the holiday fund’ or similar. So the money saved on heating goes towards a flight to a tropical paradise where you stay in a five-star hotel for a week and lounge on the beach. This doesn’t exactly help the environment.

And this is where my biggest problem ultimately lies. No matter how hard we try to reduce our energy use, whether it’s through small behavioural changes or making things more energy efficient, the rebound effect will get us every time. I don’t know what the solution is but I think that this is something that really needs to be discussed publicly.

Sometimes the causes and effects of climate change can seem so overwhelming that people (myself included) want to give up, believing there’s nothing they can do. Unfortunately, there’s some truth in that. But one thing we can do is realise that it is overall effects that we need to consider, not individual ones. It’s not a very sexy message or one that is easy to sell, but unless it becomes the focus of the discussion then Earth Day is going to be nothing more than a wasted PR exercise. And that’s a real shame.

Author

Sarah Hearne: hearnes[at]tcd.ie

Photo credit

http://thinkloud65.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/children_holding_hands_around_the_world1.gif