mosquito killing LASERS

Over at nytimes.com there is a post about Nathan Myhrvold's new mosquito killing LASERs... that's right... LASERS... How Star Wars...
Check it out.

Data sharing in Ecology and Evolution

Any scientist interested in analysis of genetic data knows the value of online repositories for sequence data (such as genBank). Any researcher publishing analyses of sequence data likely is required by publishers to make their sequence data publicly available in such a database. Not only does this allow for other researchers to validate one's work, it also allows for more general research that may use those sequences. In fact there is a growing number of research programs that revolve solely around mining the data stored in such repositories.

Michael Whitlock and colleagues, in the current issue of the American Naturalist, discuss the importance of data archiving in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. There are new web-based archiving services that allow the storage of general datasets, and the authors argue that science has lost a tremendous amount of data, and there is no reason for the loss of data in an era where online data storage is so cheap and accessible.

Within the next year, several journals (American Naturalist, Molecular Ecology, etc..) will require the sharing of general data sets, similar to the genetic data sets stored at GenBank. For example, the American Naturalist's policy will read:

This journal requires, as a condition for publication, that data supporting the results in the paper should be archived in an appropriate public archive, such as GenBank, TreeBASE, Dryad, or the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. Authors may elect to have the data publicly available at time of publication, or, if the technology of the archive allows, may opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, especially for sensitive information such as human subject data or the location of endangered species.

This is a fantastic idea. The open sharing of data will not only promote scientific integrity, it will also allow for expansive meta-analyses and synthesis of diverse data sets. And in the end, most work published in these journals is funded by the tax payers of various countries, and they should be allowed access to the data that they are paying for...

Whitlock, M., McPeek, M., Rausher, M., Rieseberg, L., & Moore, A. (2010). Data Archiving The American Naturalist, 175 (2), 145-146 DOI: 10.1086/650340

Pitcher-plants: Nature's toilet bowl.

Pitcher plants are carnivorous plants, that unlike active traps such as the Venus Fly Trap, passively gain nutrients from animal sources. In general, the pitchers produce nectar that attract insects and other small animals (I have found frogs and salamanders in Sarracenia purpurea leaves), which then fall into the pitchers, drown, and decompose. The plant is then able to absorb nutrients from this decomposing material. Generally decomposition within the pitchers is aided by an inquiline community of microbes, rotifers, copepods and a variety of other invertebrates.

Pitcher plants usually grow in nutrient poor environments (acid bogs, tropical mountain tops etc..) and the carnivory is assumed to be an adaptation to such environments, allowing the plants to obtain the nitrogen and phosphorous necessary for growth.

The genus Nepenthes has gained attention over the last year with the recent discovery of one of the largest pitcher plants, Nepenthes attenboroughii, that can have 1.5-2 liters of water within their pitchers. A recent paper in Biology Letters (see cover image) describes another novelty within the pitcher plants. Nepenthes lowii has two types of pitchers: young plants produce ground-level pitchers which are well-suited to insect capture, whereas larger, more mature plants produce aerial pitchers which are not well-suited to insect capture, and various hypothesis have been put forth as to what these aerial pitchers were doing. In their recent paper, Clarke and colleagues show via isotope analysis that the majority of Nitrogen in the aerial pitchers was coming from the faecal matter the mountain tree shrew, Tupaia montana.

The aerial pitchers are have wide, non-slippery mouths and a large hood that folds away from the pitcher. The nectar is produced on the hood, and in order for the mountain shrew to gain access to the nectar, it much perch itself on the pitcher with its 'rump over the pot' if you will. It seems that this placement of the shrew on the pitcher is prime placement for the pitcher to collect faeces that are dropped by the shrew while it eats its dinner.

Here is an example of a plant that collects its own manure fertilizer. What a great system.


Clarke, C., Bauer, U., Lee, C., Tuen, A., Rembold, K., & Moran, J. (2009). Tree shrew lavatories: a novel nitrogen sequestration strategy in a tropical pitcher plant Biology Letters, 5 (5), 632-635 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0311

Evolution 2009 - Highlights 1

Conferences are always exciting – so much data, so many good ideas, so much to think about. A short list of highlights so far includes:

L. Morran talked about why sex was better with a partner (evolution of sex)

M. Hoso talked about asymmetry in snails and associated asymmetry in their snake predators

M. Szucs talked about the rapid evolution of diapause phenotypes in a biological control agent.

And many many more.

Conference dining and disposable one-use dishes

One thing that has always bothered me about conferences is the amount of one-use dishes that are gone through every day. Here at Evolution 2009, there are ~ 1100 registrants, most of whom attend at least 2 out of three meals a day at the dining facilities. About a month ago, I accumulated several backpacker dishes that I keep in my backpack at all times to try to minimize waste. I am using a folding camp plate/bowl, a reusable spork, a steel coffee mug and a nalgene bottle for water (I am following the lead of Dave over at 365 Days of Trash - check out his awesome video).

I have been using the dishes for the last few meals and I have been pretty amazed at how it was received by most other people here, commenting on how great of an idea it was. While they are using disposable dishes, I can reuse mine the whole time. This is my own little way of protecting the planet.

I have an idea for future conferences. Generally at these things you get a bag full of sponsored 'goodies' when you register - pens, water bottles, etc... (I have only seen about 10 people here using there reusable water bottle that they got for registration...). What if the conference was to have their sponsors supply reusable plates and silverware and not offer paper plates? That might make a point. Maybe it is just wishful thinking though.

I love my reusable plates.

Evolution 2009 - Day 1

After a long hiatus from posting (as I was finishing up the good ol' dissertation) and a 9.5 hour drive, I am at the Evolution 2009 meetings in Moscow, ID.

The first thing that I have learned at this meeting is that I will never again take the cheap way out and stay in a dorm room at a conference. Sure it saves some money, but is it worth it when you end up staying in a building that smells like a stale locker room? Not really. I am considering driving around the area and finding a nice campground nearby to put up my tent. Fresh Idaho air would be much nicer...

The conference started off for me with the SJ Gould Award Lecture given by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. From the Evolution Society's website,

The Stephen Jay Gould Prize is awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution to recognize individuals whose sustained and exemplary efforts have advanced public understanding of evolutionary science and its importance in biology, education, and everyday life in the spirit of Stephen Jay Gould.

Eugenie Scott definitely fits into this with her great work in advancing the public understanding of science, with particular focus paid to evolutionary biology. Her talk (which should appear at some point on the Evolution 2009 website above) focused on ways in which educators can clarify how they teach science to increase the public understanding of science. Some of her main points were:

• Science has three levels: core science which are generally accepted based on a large amount of evidence (evolution, atomic theory, gravity, etc...), frontier science where most work is done to describe the core science, and the fringe science for which there is little effort expended as there is a low probability of success (esp, telekinesis, intelligent design, ID). She makes the point that it is possible to move from fringe science to core science (pointing out the example of plate techtonics), but in most cases it is unlikely. The burden of proof lies in the intelligent design community to do the research if they want to advance ID from the fringe to the frontier, and to date this has not been done.
• One of the major hurdles to the public understanding evolution is that ID folks tend to point out disagreements between biologists in the realms of frontier science (this is why science works so well - we disagree), but the major point is that there is very little disagreement about the core science - that all forms of life on this planet are descended from common ancestors.
• Word choice is important - we are not "darwinists" - we are evolutionary biologists. If you can attached 'ism' to a word it becomes an ideology. Evolution is not an ideology - it is science.

I will post up a link to the video as soon as I come accross it.

It was an excellent way to start the conference. The SJ Gould Award is a great thing for the Evolution Society to have started. The public pays for us to do our research, and it is our responsibility to make sure that they benefit from this work.

Full pints for Oregonians?

I love Oregon - More green than you know what to do with, huge mountains, rocky beaches - and maybe soon - honest pints in the pubs.

It is astonishingly uncommon in the US to actually get a pint of beer when a 'pint' is ordered in a bar. Most places use pint sized glasses with thick bottoms that make a glass full to the brim (with no foam) as little as 12 - 13 oz, rather than the 16 for a full pint.

A bill being discussed by the Oregon House will, if approved, allow pubs that serve honest pints to display a decal displaying their full pints (Read Oregonian article here). This way, there is no cost to other places that want to keep pouring fake-pints, but will encourage true beer fans to go to those places that serve only honest pints. Oregon will survive as the best beer state in the nation... I love it here.