VIPSciComm

What I Learned From 5 Weeks of Science Communication

jenebauerLeave a comment

Anna here –

As an undergrad wrapping up my first year of college this past spring, I remember sitting in my dorm room with a thermos of hot tea, scanning website after website, asking myself what I was going to do with my summer. At the time, I was about halfway through my first-ever geology class, which had sent me on an earth and climate science kick that inspired most of my searches. Eventually, my professor sent me a link to the TimeScavengers website and internship information page. It seemed like a perfect opportunity – something that would allow me to geek out about science from the comfort of my own home, where I could still spend time with my friends and family. I decided to apply.

Naively, I assumed the internship would be a breeze. Looking back, I’m ashamed of how smug I felt about it – I had grown up hearing people telling me that I was a good writer, and that I was a good scientist, so I imagined that it wouldn’t be that hard to combine the two. Within the first week, I quickly found out I was mistaken. It turned out that there’s likely a reason most scientists aren’t writers, and vice versa: because it is hard. 

For me, the biggest challenge was the time and effort it took to dissect each article to a level where I could rewrite it for others. I remember multiple occasions when I put my highlighter away, thinking I fully understood an article, only to sit in front of an empty Google Doc and realize I had to go back and reread an entire section. I discovered there was a huge difference between understanding something in my brain and putting it in words. (This, of course, was shortly followed by the realization that the understanding locked in my brain was probably not all that complete to begin with). Point being, there’s another layer of insight that comes with trying to explain science, and, as painful as that layer might be to reach, it will definitely be beneficial in the long run.

While nothing about the internship proved impossible, it certainly challenged me in ways I didn’t expect. However, I was also struck by how much easier these processes became over time. In one of my first articles, I remember essentially skipping over a methods section that had too many big, scientific-looking words. The task of sorting through all of them, looking them up, rereading and rewriting seemed too daunting, and my mentors, Sam and Alex, had to explain the whole thing to me. On a more recent article, however, I was able to plow through an equally challenging methods section on my own. I sprawled out at a table at a library nearby, a printed out and highlighted article in front of me, with a notebook on one side and my laptop to look up words with on the other side. It still took quite a while, but it was satisfying in the end to see the improvements I had made over the course of the internship.

In the end, I don’t think my time with TimeScavengers has changed the path I hope to take as a scientist. If anything, the hours reading articles made me realize how much I itched to be out in the field doing my own research, rather than pouring over someone else’s. However, this internship definitely changed my perspective on science communication going forward. It seems to me that anyone who seeks the fancy title of “scientist” should also seek the title of “science communicator.” After all, earth-shattering research is worth nothing if only the researcher themself knows about it – they must be able to convey their findings to everyone else in order for it to make an impact. I also hope to make accessibility a priority in any research that I do in the future, so that aspiring scientists feel encouraged, rather than intimidated, when reading my findings.

4 Things I Learned this Summer about Science, Communicating, and Connecting with Both

jenebauerLeave a comment

By Habiba Rabiu

Science communication has been a part of my life for longer than I could name the concept. I grew up in a family of science lovers, so reading, watching, and listening to science-based publications and entertainment has been something I have enjoyed since early childhood. Interning at Time Scavengers for the summer of 2022 was my first time creating science content in a professional capacity. It was a challenging and rewarding experience to be on the other side of the words. I learned a lot about myself and what science communication meant to me, namely:

  • There are many ways to be a science communicator, from creating short-form content on social media to writing policy. All of those levels are important, and more people than ever are needed on all platforms producing and distributing clear, accurate information. There are endless avenues to explore with science communication, one only needs to be inspired to pursue them.
  • As necessary as it is, summarizing research articles and studies in an easily consumable way is not a simple task! At times it felt like I was translating from a language I wasn’t entirely fluent in. It was constantly necessary for me to remind myself of what my intention was with every piece I wrote: to make the information interesting, relatable, and concise. That helped me to focus on the core of the information and organize it in a way that did justice to the source material while still being accessible to those who may not be experts in the subject matter.
  • Not all science news and articles have to be shocking and dazzling. As wonderful as new discoveries are, there can be just as much impact in reinforcing simple, close-to-home ideas. Proof that a hot desert is slowly but surely getting hotter is not what most people would consider exciting news, but it’s the job of a science communicator to express why information like that is just as if not more significant as the discovery of a new exoplanet.
  • Communication is lost without consideration. While there is a time for jargon and complicated graphics, as certain ideas can only be expressed in a technical manner, care should be taken when trying to reach the masses that everyone has different levels of ability, understanding, and education. Choosing to communicate science means choosing to share information that affects everyone. Part of the job is ensuring that everyone gains as much as possible from what is being shared. Accessibility and diversity are as important to the dissemination of science communication as clarity and precision are to writing it. It is worth the extra time and words to make sure that a key term is explained thoroughly, or the alternative text of a graph gives accurate values.

Writing for Time Scavengers gave me skills and insight that I will use throughout my education and career. I had a great time, am thrilled to have been a part of it, and can’t wait to use what I learned to make the world a more informed place. 

Finding Connection in Science – the Heart of SciComm

jenebauer1 Comment

By Makayla Palm

I have changed a lot since I began my journey into sci-comm. While I do attribute some of it to post-high school maturity, I think pursuing sci-comm has helped me become more empathetic, a better listener, and it has helped me reframe my focus to hone in on connections with others. My goal in this essay is to share a bit of that journey with you. 

I remember being taught that science was objective, and implicitly learned to take the human-ness out of science. The science came first: if someone wanted to interject their own experiences or feelings into the science, but it should be treated separately from the science.Science, especially the science that deals with the history of the Earth, can feel contentious for people. The history of our planet ultimately says something about our origins, and people have very strong opinions about the implications for those origins. The mystery of origins, about us, earth, and life itself is what got me interested in geology–it keeps me awake at night, wondering how all of these big ideas connect. I realized about five years into my thought journey that I was thinking through all of this the wrong way. Having attended scientific conferences and now wrapping up the Time Scavengers virtual internship, I know how important it is to strive for connection with others rooted in the personal, especially in science.

I have always enjoyed writing and telling stories, and because of how I learned science (i.e., how I thought you had to separate the facts from the emotions), I thought these things were mutually exclusive. I took my writing and geology classes and did not think much of it until I met my geology advisor. In the beginning of the semester, she described geology as being a storyteller, with the privilege of being able to learn more about the world around us. Especially during the pandemic, she made efforts to get us to see local geology in (socially distanced) outings. Ultimately, she wanted us to know we all had voices, and that we had the ability to tell these stories to others. She helped me understand how important it was to promote diversity and how integral connection with others was to doing good science. 

This changed my perspective quite a lot because before this,  I spent my time learning to build walls. I had a lot of people walk out on me or lose my trust. I desperately wanted to make connections, but it felt like it was getting more and more difficult. Being raised in a politically and religiously conservative environment did not help this attitude, especially as a science major. With a conservative Christian background, I was sharpening my swords for the secular institutions that I was told would try to snatch my faith from me with their long ages and fossils. Since graduating and stepping into the academic field, I realized what I learned all those years ago couldn’t be further from the truth- science and faith don’t have to be mutually exclusive at all. Meeting with my advisor and talking with her about my background helped me realized I could blend my knack for storytelling and my desire for connections with my love for geology

The Time Scavengers Internship was something I excitedly took on because I wanted to learn more about sci-comm while earning some summer cash. What I did not expect was to learn from people who have made an impact in science communication and hear their personal stories. This was a unique opportunity for me to see that I can blend my passions for studying origins, philosophy and religion with my enthusiasm for science. The first speaker, Riley Black, is my sci-comm hero. Her book, My Beloved Brontosaurus, was a huge part in my realization that science and storytelling can intertwine. The second speaker, Dr. Liz Hare, talked about accessibility and making figures/images/graphs interpretable for people who cannot see them. Her overarching theme of accessibility was really insightful because it points to a role of connection that is overlooked by people who are not disabled. Another speaker, Priya Shukla, spoke about embracing our individual pasts and experiences because they can deepen the meanings of our scientific work. This was affirming to me, as I have always been hesitant to share my religious background in a scientific setting. I want to embrace my unique position and hopefully be helpful to those who may also be navigating similar journeys. The more I am in the academic/scientific community, the more I see people who want to connect with others, and I am learning to be more vulnerable in sharing my story. The more I have learned to let down the walls of protection, the more connection I’ve been able to have with others and learn from them. 

Science writers, professors, and content creators these days all punctuate the same point: science is for everyone, and we can connect with each other through it, a shift that I think is a positive move for the community. Our stories matter and the science we are interested in and want to pursue is affected by our past, the culture we live in, and how we see the world around us. Science is not objective because people carry their experiences with them, and understanding this idea allows “doing science” to reach further depths than the raw numbers or data would by themselves. 

Since learning to become a better science communicator, my goal is to help others enjoy science and see the stories it offers us about ourselves, how we got here, and what we can learn about our past. Learning to see science communication as a way to connect with people brings a richness and unifying feeling, that we can begin to understand something bigger than all of us. 

A woman in her early twenties is sitting at a desk, wearing black-rimmed glasses and holding a journal that says “I dig it”, with an ichthyosaur on the cover. She has mid-length brown hair, an Allosaurus tattoo on her right arm, an ammonite tattoo on her left, and she is confidently smiling at the camera.

“What I learned” Article

jenebauerLeave a comment

By Michael Hallinan

Science has been a consistently developing field, with tons of new finds, new scientists, and a general increase in how many people are involved and engaged with the discipline. However, my undergraduate peers and I have found that effective communication is an often underdeveloped skill within science. We spend so much time learning calculus, learning physics, learning about environmental systems, yet never seem to spend much learning how to effectively share what we learn with others.

As of 2022, I’m entering my second year of undergraduate studies, and I’ve already seen the aforementioned communication divide as I share what I learn with family and friends. I entered science because I found the developments in biotechnology to be super interesting and to have great potential to better our world. However, science isn’t exclusive to scientists. There are policymakers, governments, educators, stakeholders, voters, and tons of other people who need to engage and interact with science, and often cannot because of the language and lack of accessibility regarding scientific research. As a result, I still want to pursue research in biotechnology, but I want much of my work to center open communication and accessibility within science. 

Thankfully, I was offered an internship with the Time Scavengers organization, and was granted the opportunity to further develop my communication skills through practice and learning opportunities. Weekly, me and the other interns got to hear a variety of scientists of various backgrounds teach about different factors of communications, which was an amazing opportunity. The major topics covered were effective storytelling, identities’ role in communication, effective teaching methods, accessibility, and compromise. However, although each of these topics was spoken on, there was so much more with each presenter having a unique background and journey into communications.

Besides these presentations, I also could practice communication through summarizing scientific research on topics from as broad as chimpanzee communication to global water evaporation with varying degrees of challenge. It was through this work that I truly realized how essential science communications work is. Much of the research I read through used jargon or failed to explain concepts or methods in a way that someone outside of the subjects’ field would understand. This meant that with most of the research I read through, to even understand a page, there was a lot of additional research and dictionary searching that had to be done. If I can’t understand their work without lots of additional effort, how can we expect those without a science background to do so? This was the biggest challenge I felt my experience within this internship helped bridge. 

Each article presented a unique challenge of learning something brand new and learning all the language and nuance to a degree where I could communicate that information to others. This was by far the most challenging part of the internship, but luckily, I had a lot of help. Every week I’d write about two articles summarizing papers I had chosen on a variety of topics. Sometimes this was a pretty straightforward process, but more often the not required the aforementioned searching and struggling to understand. After I finished this, though, I’d sent my article off to my mentor and we could discuss and edit. I got a lot of really useful tips about writing, especially having another perspective on my work. I think the most helpful information I got was just trying to be simple. A lot of writing, both academic and artistic, encourages high-level vocabulary or complex ways of communicating things. Which sometimes is valuable and arguably necessary, but for accessibility is not always the best. Many of the challenges in my writing were related to this either in complex words or structure that could be easily simplified down to something else. This not only makes it easier for non-native English speakers but also maybe those who are not as familiar with academic writing or the topic to understand. It seems like such basic advice, but really being simple when appropriate is so valuable, and something writers might not consider because of the culture around writing. 

In addition to this advice, within both my written articles and the presentations, there was a general focus on how to better connect with a variety of audiences. Sometimes this meant trying to use comparisons or more ordinary language to reach others, and sometimes it meant including more of yourself or relevant applications of your work to allow the audience to engage more with the topic. This type of discussion was something I hadn’t really engaged much with and felt as if there were so many perspectives that got to share and be heard in this experience, both intern and expert alike.

Furthermore, I think it’s really important to acknowledge a lot of the direct and indirect discussion on accessibility that went on. Besides language and comprehension accessibility, there was an amazing presentation on alt text. Although I’ve heard of alt text, I never really knew how to properly put it into my work, what its true value is, and what makes good alt text. These things were touched on and discussed, and I could practice creating alt text for each of my articles. This meant describing images or graphs and really focusing on what information is being communicated through visual means, as well as how to explain that in full value to someone who is using a screen reader. For graphs, this meant describing the type of graph, variables, general structure, and any other important information. While for pictures, this meant explaining things like the perspective, the context, color, or any other important visual cues and information needed to properly create meaningful alt text. This forced me to really think about how to analyze what information is portrayed through visual means both directly and indirectly, later converting this into written information. This is going to be imperative to my future work and really opened my eyes more in terms of digital accessibility.

Overall, this internship was an extremely valuable opportunity. I not only got to engage and practice communicating challenging topics, but I also got to hear from so many perspectives and other amazing scientists. Each of the interns, presenters, and mentors all had something to contribute and expanded my view on what science communication is. Science communication isn’t just for National Geographic Writers, it’s not just for podcasts hosts, it’s something all scientists, both writing-focused and non-writing focused, should consider developing skills in. It’s in the way we describe a figure, in the way we share our findings with policymakers, it’s in the way we describe our job positions to others. Science communication is all around us, and to ineffectively communicate in science is to lessen the value of your work. This opportunity brought a lot of practice and new ideas to my writing, and I hope to continue to use these in all facets of my work in the future, as well as encourage others to think more critically about the way we communicate even if it’s not the core of their work. 

Birds are more Vulnerable to Climate Change Impacts than Small Mammals in the Mojave Desert

jenebauerLeave a comment

Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird populations

E.A. Riddell, K.J. Iknayan, L. Hargrove, S. Tremor, J.L. Patton, R. Ramirez, B.O. Wolf, S.R. Beissinger

Summarized by Anna Geldert

What data were used? Researchers compared climate change responses in desert species, including 34 small mammal species and 135 bird species. Surveys were conducted at 151 sites throughout the Mojave Desert, concentrated mostly in Death Valley National Park, Mojave National Preserve, and Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA). Modern observations were compared to historical observations by Joseph Grinnell and colleagues in the early 20th century to assess change over time.

Methods: The authors used a dynamic multi-species occupancy model to determine how the proportion of sites that a species occupied changed over time. In summary, this approach assessed the probability of detecting a species  at different time periods, and used this data to determine the change in occupancy (likelihood of a species occupying a site), change in species richness (number of species at a site), colonization probability (likelihood of expanding to new sites), and persistence (long-term survival of a species at a site) probability. This model also factored in the impacts of climate change and habitat loss. The authors also estimated the degree of exposure (or how greatly an organism is affected by climatic changes) in small mammals and birds by simulating the “cooling costs” of each species. Cooling costs represent the water required for evaporative cooling to maintain a stable body temperature and were based on the species’ behavior, morphology, and microhabitat conditions.

Results: Overall, modern bird species declined in occupancy when compared to historical records, while small mammal occupancy remained relatively consistent. The model estimated that the occupancy of 29% of bird species decreased, 70% were unchanged, and only 1% increased. Meanwhile, only 9% of small mammals saw an occupancy decrease, while 79% stayed constant and 12% increased. Similarly, bird species richness decreased at 90.1% of sites and only 3.3% of sites for small mammals. The authors also found that bird populations experienced higher exposure to climate change than small mammals. The exposure model estimated that cooling costs were approximately 3.3 times higher in birds than they were in mammals, with this number projected to increase to 3.8 times by 2080. Finally, the level of adaptation and specialization among species of both groups had little influence on changes in cooling costs, suggesting that microhabitat conditions and their behavioral ability to “buffer” against climatic changes had a much greater impact.

The figure shows a histogram graph, labeled ‘B’, which represents the change in species occupancy over time for both birds and small mammals. The x-axis is labeled “change in occupancy,” and ranges from -0.6 to 0.4, increasing by a factor of 0.5. Two y-axises appear stacked vertically on top of one another so that data on birds and small mammals can be graphed separately; both are labeled “number of species.” On the top right corner of each graph is the black silhouette of a bird on the top graph, and a small rodent on the bottom graph. The top axis, which shows data for birds, ranges from 0 to 30. Gray bars (roughly 70% of total) represent no significant change in occupancy compared to historical records, while red bars (roughly 30%) represent significant increases and decreases. Occupancy bars for birds are concentrated left of zero, indicating an overall decrease in species occupancy. The number of species is highest for changes in occupancy of -0.1 and -0.05, which each have about 25 species. As change in occupancy continues to decrease, the number of species slopes off rapidly, with only 5 species or less for occupancies lower than -0.35. Only 3 bird species have a positive change in occupancy, with probability values at 0.1, 0.15, and 0.4. The bottom y-axis ranges from 0 to 15, and represents data for small mammals. Gray bars (roughly 80% of total) again represent no significant change, while blue bars represent significant increases or decreases. Change in occupancy for small mammals is much less skewed than occupancy for birds. The change in occupancy of 0 has the highest number of species, at roughly 15. All other occupancies have 7 species or less, and quickly decrease to zero on either side by -0.2 and 0.3 change in occupancy. Small mammals, therefore, have a much lower range in change of occupancy probability than birds. Occupancy probabilities are also much more similar to historical records for small mammals than for birds.
Fig. 1 Change in occupancy (modern – historical) of bird and small mammal species in the Mojave desert. Changes in occupancy were estimated using a dynamic multi-species occupancy model based on survey data collected during two different time periods: first, by Joseph Grinnell and colleagues in the early 20th century (historical), and second, by the authors of this paper in 2007-2018 (modern). The gray bars represent the number of species with no significant change in occupancy between modern and historical records, while colored bars (red for birds; blue for small mammals) indicate significant increases or decreases over time.

Why is this study important? This study counters the traditional approach of assessing impacts from climate change, which often assumes that exposure within an ecosystem is uniform across all species. This study revealed that in the same locations birds were more severely impacted by climate change than small mammals, as shown by the lower occupancy probability, lower species richness, and higher cooling costs in birds. Additionally, this study highlighted the importance of microhabitat buffering potential, which may be a driving factor as to why small mammals were sheltered in their burrows during the day  from the worst of the impacts of heat, while birds were not.

The big picture: As the impacts of climate change on animal populations progress, desert communities remain especially vulnerable. In order to minimize these impacts, it is important to understand how ecosystems respond to climate changes. This study suggests that impacts should be considered at the population level, rather than the community level, as species responses varied greatly even within the same ecosystem. Furthermore, the results suggest that microhabitat buffering is especially important in reducing impacts from climate change, and should be given greater attention in conservation efforts and future studies.

Citation: Riddell, E. A., Iknayan, K. J., Hargrove, L., Tremor, S., Patton, J. L., Ramirez, R., … Beissinger, S. R. (2021). Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science, 371(6529), 633–636. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd4605

Impacts From Climate Change and Other Threats Increase for At-Risk Canadian Wildlife

jenebauerLeave a comment

Increasing importance of climate change and other threats to at-risk species in Canada

Catherine Woo-Durand, Jean-Michel Matte, Grace Cuddihy, Chloe L. McGourdji, Oscar Venter and James W.A. Grant

Summarized by Anna Geldert

What data were used? In this study, researchers assessed threats to biodiversity in Canada. They drew upon the methods of a previous study by Venter et al. (2006), which recognized six primary threats to biodiversity in Canada: habitat loss, introduced (non-native) species, over-exploitation (i.e., excessive hunting or harvest), pollution, native species interactions, and natural causes. They also assessed the threat of climate change. In total, researchers assessed threats to 820 species from 12 taxa, including: vascular plants (e.g., trees, flowering plants, ferns, clubmosses, etc), freshwater fishes, marine fishes, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles, molluscs, amphibians, arthropods, mosses, and lichens. All of these species were classified as at-risk (in decreasing severity: extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of “special concern”) by COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada).

Methods: Between October 2018 and September 2019, researchers examined the COSEWIC website for evidence of Venter et al.’s six primary threats, where threatened species and the reasons they are threatened are cataloged . They looked at COSEWIC’s “Reason for Designation” statement, as well as details from the Assessment and Status Report. Any mention of any of the six major threats was recorded, so that multiple threats could be identified for each species. This data was compared to data from Venter et al. (2006) to determine changes in prevalence over time. Additionally, researchers noted mentions of climate change threats to species on the COSEWIC website. Climate change threats were classified as current, probable, or future based on a list of keywords. All seven of the biodiversity threats were assessed over time by comparing their prevalence to species with multiple COSEWIC status reports, including a total of 188 species.

Results: 814 of the 820 species studied were impacted by at least one of the six primary threats to biodiversity. Habitat degradation was the most significant threat, affecting 81.8% of species, followed by natural causes (51.0%), over-exploitation (46.9%), introduced species (46.4%), pollution (35.1%) and native species dynamics (27.2%). This represented an overall increase in threats compared to Venter et al., though introduced species and natural causes were the only threats that increased with statistical significance. Climate change impacted a total of 37.7% of species, with 13.3% of species impacted by current climate change, and 14.7% and 9.7% that will likely be impacted by probable and future climate change, respectively.

The figure shows a bar graph comparing the prevalence of the primary threats to biodiversity in the modern 2018 study and the 2005 Venter et al. study. In the top right corner, a legend indicates that white bars represent data from 2005, which included 488 species total, and black bars represent data from 2018, which included 814 species total. The x-axis shows the biodiversity threats, including habitat loss, introduced species, over-exploitation, pollution, native species interactions, natural causes, and current climate change. For each threat category, a pair of historical and modern bars are shown, with the exception of current climate change, which only has a bar for 2018. The y-axis is labeled “percentage of at-risk species,” and ranges from 0 to 90, increasing at increments of 10. For modern data, habitat loss is the most prevalent threat, affecting 81.8% of species, followed by natural causes, over-exploitation and introduced species, which all affected roughly 45-50% of species. Pollution and native species interactions (affecting 35.1% and 27.2% of species respectively) were moderate threats, while climate change was the lowest, affecting only 13.3%. For the 2005 Venter et al. data, habitat loss was also the most significant threat and was slightly more prevalent than it is today, affecting 83.8% of species. Native species interactions were also slightly higher in the 2005 study than the 2018 study, though not enough to be significant. All other threats were higher in the modern study, though introduced species and natural causes were the only categories that increased with statistical significance.
Fig 1. Percentage of at-risk species in Canada that were impacted by the six primary threats to biodiversity, comparing modern data from December 2018 and data recorded by Venter et al. in June 2005. The modern threat of climate change is also included, though there is no corresponding 2005 record. N represents the number of species (n=488 in 2005, n=814 in 2018).

The analysis comparing threats to species with multiple COSEWIC status reports found an average increase from 2.5 to 3.5 threats per species in newer reports. The prevalence of many threats also increased significantly over time, including a 27.6% increase in introduced species, a 13.3% increase in over-exploitation, and a 10.1% increase in pollution. Mentions of the threat of climate change also increased from 11.7% in the oldest reports to 49.5% in the newest reports.

Why is this study important? This study reveals that threats to biodiversity continue to increase today, despite protections that have been put in place. In particular, the threat of introduced species has increased significantly in recent years, reflecting rises in globalization and human-environmental interactions. Overall, researchers were surprised by the relatively low percentage of species currently impacted by climate change (13.3%), as this topic has gained so much global attention. The authors suggested the unexplained increase in death by natural causes compared to the Venter et al. report may actually account for impacts from climate change, as climate change has increased the severity of storms, droughts, and other weather events worldwide.

The big picture: This study emphasizes the importance of wildlife conservation, in Canada and all over the world. On-going threats such as habitat loss, pollution and overexploitation continue to impact hundreds of species in Canada, so it is likely that stricter protections are needed to enact effective change. Additionally, this study indicates that climate change is among the most significant threats to biodiversity and is projected to continue increasing in prevalence in the future. Although it was not considered to be one of the six primary threats by Venter et al. in 2005, it should definitely be recognized as one today.

Citation: Woo-Durand, C., Matte, J.-M., Cuddihy, G., McGourdji, C. L., Venter, O., & Grant, J. W. A. (2020). Increasing importance of climate change and other threats to at-risk species in Canada. Environmental Reviews, 28(4), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0032

From Lynx to Coyotes: How Climate Change Has Impacted Hare Predation

jenebauerLeave a comment

Climate change increases predation risk for a keystone species of the boreal forest

By: Michael J.L. Peers, Yasmine N. Majchrzak, Allyson K. Menzies, Emily K. Studd, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau, Rudy Boonstra, Murray Humphries, Thomas S. Jung, Alice J. Kenney, Charles J. Krebs, Dennis L. Murray, and Stan Boutin

Summarized by: Anna Geldert

What data were used? Researchers observed 321 snowshoe hares in southwestern Yukon from 2015-2018. Researchers also monitored changes in weather and snow conditions within the study region, including temperature, snow depth, snow hardness and daily snowfall.

Methods: Hares were captured in live traps and given collars with mortality sensors before being released back into the wild. In the event of hare death, researchers visited the site to identify any predators responsible for the death by looking for tracks, scat, and other indicators in the surrounding area. Researchers recorded data on weather and snow conditions at three different sites throughout the study region on a nearly daily basis, as well as at each kill site. They then used a computer model to compare the likelihood of hare death under different weather conditions (e.g., temperature, snow depth, and snow hardness), and generated a best fit line to model these relationships. Similar models compared weather conditions to hare predation from lynx and coyote, hare death by age group, and hare foraging time by age group. The models were tested by inputting randomized data and estimating uncertainty.

Results: Researchers found that 153 hares died of predation. Lynx and coyote were the most common predators, accounting for 59.4% and 25.5% of deaths respectively. Hare survival was lowest in 2015-2016, countering the predicted increase in hare populations based on predator-prey cycles. Low survival rates were correlated with shallow snow depth and high snow hardness. . The relationships between hare survival and these weather conditions are most likely due to changes in predator threats, not changes in foraging behavior. While lynx predation remained relatively constant across a wide range of snow conditions, coyote predation increased by a factor of 1.155 with higher snow depth and 1.244 with lower snow hardness.

The figure graphs the relationship between snow depth and hare predation risk by lynx and coyotes. The x-axis is labeled “snow depth (cm),” and ranges from 20 to 70, increasing at intervals of 10. The y-axis is labeled “risk (relative to baseline),” and ranges from 0 to 15, increasing at intervals of 5. A legend indicates that the purple line represents risk from lynx while the red line represents risk from coyotes. At a risk measurement of 1, a dotted line runs horizontally (slope=0) across the graph; this represents baseline risk. The risk from lynx almost exactly coincides with the baseline risk, indicating that snow depth has little impact. On the other hand, the risk for coyote has an inverse relationship with snow depth. At a snow depth of 20 centimeters (the lowest depth represented), risk from coyotes is approximately 10. The risk line then decreases exponentially, crossing the baseline risk at approximately 35 centimeters and plateauing close to a risk of zero around 50 centimeters.
Fig. 1. Hare predation risk by lynx and coyotes at different snow depths. The dotted line represents a baseline risk, while shaded regions represent standard errors.

Why is this study important? This study is an important example of the cascading effects that climate change can have on ecosystems in the boreal forest. Increasing temperatures due to climate change have altered traditional snow conditions in the Yukon, leading to lower snow depth and snow hardness in recent years. Coyotes – who, unlike lynx, are not well adapted to harsh winters – have gained a relative advantage in these milder conditions, leading to increased hare predation. Risk has increased so much, in fact, that they disrupted the natural rise and fall of hare populations due to existing predator-prey cycles. If these trends continue, they could potentially impact other aspects of boreal forest ecosystems.

The big picture: It is widely recognized that climate change threatens the survival of many species and ecosystems around the globe. However, this is most often talked about in terms of direct threats, such as increasing temperature, increasing severe weather conditions, etc. This article demonstrates that a further concern, particularly in boreal forests, is the impact of changing climatic conditions on food webs and predation threats. Further research is needed to determine if the changing predator-prey relationships between hares and coyotes in this study are consistent in other regions of boreal forest, and whether similar trends are reflected in other biomes as well.

Citation: Peers, M. J. L., Majchrzak, Y. N., Menzies, A. K., Studd, E. K., Bastille-Rousseau, G., Boonstra, R., … Boutin, S. (2020). Climate change increases predation risk for a keystone species of the boreal forest. Nature Climate Change, 10(12), 1149–1153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00908-4

How climate change is affecting Pacific species

jenebauerLeave a comment

Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate change in the Pacific Islands region

Giddens J, Kobayashi DR, Mukai GNM, Asher J, Birkeland C, Fitchett M, et al.

Summarized by Habiba Rabiu, a student of environmental geosciences at Fort Hays State University. Habiba is interested in all aspects of environmental science and conservation & sustainability. She would like to work in educating others about those topics. In her free time, she likes to read, write, and bake.

What data were used? The researchers assessed 83 species grouped into six functional groups based on range size and habitat: pelagic, shark, deep-slope, coastal, coral reef, and invertebrate species. The “coral reef” group of fishes contained many species, so it was further divided into JEGS (Jacks, Emperors, Groupers, Snappers), parrotfishes, surgeon fishes, and “other coral reef” fishes. The species were chosen based on expert opinion, importance of their ecosystem function, records of food fish, and cultural and conservation importance. The species came from a wide range of locations in the Central, West, and South Pacific Ocean. 

To determine the climate change vulnerability of the species, the researchers considered two components: exposure and sensitivity. Exposure was defined as to what degree an organism is likely to experience a negative change in a particular physical variable. Sensitivity was considered a biological trait-based variable, which the researchers determined by review of existing literature and expert opinion. 

Methods: To assess exposure, data from various sources was compiled based on certain variables that were the most significant for species living in the Pacific Islands Region: temperature (surface and bottom), salinity (surface and bottom), ocean acidification (pH), mixed layer depth, precipitation, current velocity, wind stress, surface oxygen, sea level rise, wave height, chlorophyll, and primary productivity. To determine sensitivity, experts were asked to identify the six most important sensitivity attributes for each species out of 12: habitat specificity; prey specificity, complexity in reproductive strategy, sensitivity to ocean acidification, early life history survival and settlement requirements, dispersal of early life stages, sensitivity to temperature, population growth rate, stock size/status, adult mobility, spawning cycle, and other stressors (including habitat degradation, pollution, disease, or changes in the food web). 

For each species, a component score was calculated for both exposure and sensitivity based on the number of factors/attributes that passed a certain threshold. Then, the overall climate change vulnerability rank was calculated by multiplying the exposure and sensitivity component scores. The numerical values for the climate vulnerability rank were the following: 1–3 (low), 4–6 (moderate), 8–9 (high), and 12–16 (very high).

Grid where each square shows what percentage of a species is considered “moderate”, “high”, or “very high” in vulnerability. The squares are shown in greyscale, with 0% being white and 100% being black. Approximate values: Pelagic: 90% moderate, 10% high Shark: 10% moderate, 30% high, 60% very high Deep slope: 60% moderate, 40% high Coastal: 100% moderate Coral reef JEGS: 80% moderate, 20% high Coral reef parrotfish: 60% moderate, 30% high, 10% very high Coral reef surgeonfish: 25% moderate, 75% high “Other” coral reef: 65% moderate, 25% high, 10% very high Invertebrate: 10% moderate, 30% high, 60% very high
The percentage of species within the group that fell within each vulnerability ranking.

Results: All species ranked “very high” in the overall exposure component of vulnerability. It was determined that this was caused by three influences: decrease in oxygen concentration, rise in sea surface temperature, and increase in ocean acidification (decrease in surface pH). In the sensitivity component, it was found that the groups that were made up of larger-bodied species shared similar sensitivity scores, while the groups with smaller and site-attached species tended to differ.

In the overall assessment of climate change vulnerability, the species showed a wide range in vulnerability across the functional groups. The larger and more wide-ranging pelagic and coastal species were scored as the least vulnerable, while the smaller and more site-attached species (small coral reef fishes and invertebrates) were the most vulnerable. Some groups had a more general ranking across all the included species (for example in the coastal group all the species were ranked as “moderate”), while in others there was a wider distribution across vulnerability rankings. 

Why is this study important? Most studies on the effect of climate change of ocean ecosystems focus on a particular or particular type of species, or on singular factors. This study assessed many factors affecting many species, which creates a more all-encompassing view of the effects of climate change and enables focus on the ecosystem as a whole rather than looking at it in pieces. 

The big picture: Well-functioning ocean ecosystems are essential to the health of the planet, but there is still a lack of both information about the ecosystems and the organization and usage of that information. Collecting data on marine species and the environmental factors that affect them (and to what degree) is necessary to their preservation.

Citation: Giddens J, Kobayashi DR, Mukai GNM, Asher J, Birkeland C, Fitchett M, et al. (2022) Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate change in the Pacific Islands region. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270930

Feathers: The Difference Between Life and Death for Triassic Dinosaurs

AdrianeLeave a comment

Arctic ice and the ecological rise of the dinosaurs

Paul Olsen, Jingeng Sha, Yanan Fang, Clara Chang, Jessica H. Whiteside, Sean Kinney, Hans-Dieter Sues, Dennis Kent, Morgan Schaller, Vivi Vajda

Summarized by Blair Stuhlmuller

What data were used? Researchers used three main sources of data. First, they looked at ancient lake sediments preserved in sedimentary rocks in the Junggar Basin, China. They then analyzed fossilized dinosaur footprints and other signs of “dinoturbation,” or the reworking or movement of soils and sediments by dinosaurs, in sedimentary rocks across the northern latitudes of China. The final set of data used was the phylogenetic tree of life for extinct and living dinosaurs, reptiles and mammals. A phylogenetic tree is a diagram showing lines of evolutionary descent of different organisms from a common ancestor. They used a preexisting phylogenetic tree but mapped preserved evidence of feather-like features and other key traits onto the extinct and living branches of organisms. This was done in order to make inferences about the presence of feathers and similar traits in extinct organisms where no fossil evidence exists yet to prove the presence of these features. 

Methods: The researchers analyzed the grain size of the sedimentary rocks recovered from the Junggar Basin in China. These lake sediments were deposited millions of years ago in the Late Triassic (~210 million years ago) and Early Jurassic (~200 million years ago) and thus can reveal much about the climatic conditions during the End Triassic Extinction. The location of these sediments, the Junggar Basin, is also of particular importance. Using already established continental reconstructions for the Mesozoic (in other words where Pangea, our most recent supercontinent, was located), researchers determined that the Junggar Basin, currently located in the high latitudes of China (around 43°N latitude), would have been north of the Arctic Circle at about 71°N paleolatitude during the Triassic. 

Lastly, the researchers used a generalized phylogenetic bracket analysis in order to infer certain traits (in this case the presence of some sort of feather-like feature or ‘protofeathers’) for which there is no current physical fossil evidence. This analysis revealed that feathers would be a primitive feature shared by many groups of dinosaurs. 

Results: Grain size analysis revealed that most of these lake sediments were comprised of fine grained (~0.1 to 63 μm) mudstones with some larger grain exceptions. These smaller amounts of larger grains (small rock pieces upto 15mm in size) are indicative of ice-rafted debris. Ice acts as a raft that can pick up sediment and larger debris that comes in contact with it. This sediment is later deposited in the middle of a body of water like an ocean or lake. Thus ice-rafted debris (IRD) is any sediment that has been transported by floating ice. The origin of this particular ice-rafted debris is interpreted as seasonal ice coverage along the coastlines of ancient lakes. As the ice formed, it would grab larger grains and debris and then break off and drift out over the lake, slowly melting as the seasons changed. As the ice melts, it deposits the larger debris among the fine silts that typically accumulate at the bottom of lakes. This contradicts the long upheld mental image of dinosaurs stomping through a tropical warm climate throughout the Triassic and really the whole Mesozoic Era. The Late Triassic was one of the few times in Earth’s history that there is no evidence of ice sheets at the poles. However, these researchers claim that despite the high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and the resulting greenhouse conditions during that time, there were freezing seasonal temperatures at high latitudes as supported by the ice-rafted debris they found. 

Large plant eating dinosaurs during the Triassic were more commonly found in the forested higher latitudes as supported by the type of dinosaur footprints and ‘dinoturbation’ found in outcrops in modern day China. While actual fossil evidence of proto-feathers has not been found on fossils of these large herbivorous dinosaurs, the phylogenetic bracket analysis posits that they were in fact insulated by some sort of feather structure and thus were well suited to the seasonal winters. This enabled these animals to take advantage of the more abundant and stable plant life of the higher latitudes and potentially survive one of the worst mass extinctions in Earth’s history. 

Groups of living and extinct mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs are shown and presence or absence of feather-like features are indicated for each group through various symbols and letters. In summary, feathers are thought to be a primitive feature, meaning that it shows up early on the evolutionary tree.
This figure shows the Phylogenetic Bracket Analysis that compared groups of dinosaurs, reptiles and mammals and mapped out feather-like features. The different feather types are shown at the top and represented by small images and numbers. 0 or ? represents their prediction that protofeathers for insulation should have been present, 1 represents bristle scales, and 2-6 represent various protofeathers based on fossil evidence. The P symbol represents those features that were predicted due to this phylogenetic bracket analysis.

During the End Triassic Extinction, incredibly large volcanic eruptions, called the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province or CAMP, were going off. These eruptions would have contributed to global warming long term but on  shorter decadal timescales, they would have caused volcanic winters.  As the eruptions periodically belched out sulfur aerosols, light would have been blocked and the atmosphere would have cooled upwards of 10 ℃. Dinosaurs previously adapted (feathered and insulated) to the seasonal winters of the high latitudes survived and even spread out toward the now cooler tropics. 

Why is this study important? This study contradicts the public’s perception of dinosaurs only thriving in a tropical climate and helps provide possibly the first empirical evidence for freezing temperatures and winter conditions in the Triassic rock record. It also provides a plausible explanation for why some dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Triassic while others did not. Feathers were the key for survival in the volcanic winters that plagued the End Triassic Extinction. They offered life saving insulation that allowed some dinosaurs to survive the extinction and then reign supreme for the rest of the Mesozoic. That is, until the meteorite wiped out all non-avian dinosaurs 135 million years later. 

The big picture: The distribution and type of life currently on our planet is in part due to what was able to survive the Triassic Extinction. Birds are the most biodiverse group of vertebrates (besides fish) and have over two times the number of species than mammals. Thus, feathers emerged as a life saving feature in the Triassic and they continue to reign supreme in modern times.  

Citation: Olsen, P., Sha, J., Fang, Y., Chang, C., Whiteside, J. H., Kinney, S., Sues, H.-D., Kent, D., Schaller, M., & Vajda, V. (2022). Arctic ice and the ecological rise of the dinosaurs. Science Advances, 8(26). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342

Horseshoe Crabs Teach Us About Heterochrony

jenebauerLeave a comment

A new method for quantifying heterochrony in evolutionary lineages

James C. Lamsdell

Summarized by Anna Geldert

What data were used? A total of 20 traits that display heterochronic conditions for 54 species of horseshoe crabs (both living and extinct) were studied. 256 traits were examined and documented in these horseshoe crabs and 99 related species to make a character matrix. Of the 54 horseshoe crabs, environmental data from previous studies was also collected to determine the species’ habitat..

Methods: This paper presents a new method for quantifying heterochrony through a process called “heterochronic weighting.” Heterochrony is a process that alters the timing and length of developmental stages of organisms, and is characterized as either paedomorphism (retaining juvenile characteristics as an adult) or peramorphism (developing beyond what is seen in related species; more “adult-like”.) For each characteristic, paedomorphic traits were assigned a score of -1, peramorphic traits were assigned a score of +1, and neutral characteristics were assigned a score of 0. The heterochronic weighting of a species was then defined as the sum of all scores divided by the number of characteristics. The author also looked at heterochrony in an evolutionary context. He generated a probable evolutionary tree using a computer model that related species based on shared traits. He then used the tree to determine the heterochronic weighting of the clade (i.e., evolutionary group) by averaging those of the individual species. The differences in heterochronic wightings between habitat preferences (marine or nonmarine) and clades were tested for statistical significance. Lastly, the author tested to see if there were concerted trends towards paedomorphy or peramorphy in each clade.  The evolutionary tree was also tested to determine the most likely habitat for ancestry species of horseshoe crabs, which gave insight to when shifts from marine to nonmarine environments occurred.

The figure shows a diagram of the heterochronic conditions as seen in limb length. Three drawings of the underside of the head shield of a horseshoe crabs are shown side by side. There is one small pair of claw-like appendages towards the front of the head shield and ten longer walking limbs visible. The first diagram has the longest limbs, extending outside the shell. It is labeled “-1,” representing a paedomorphic condition. The second diagram, labeled “0” for a neutral condition, has shorter limbs that are all contained under the shell, though some extend nearly to the edge. Lastly, the final diagram is labeled “+1” for a peramorphic condition. The limbs of the crab in this diagram are the shortest, spanning only a third to a half the width of the shell.
Fig 1. Variations in limb length serve as an example of a heterochronic characteristic in horseshoe crabs. Paedomorphic (-1), neutral (0), and peramorphic (+1) conditions are shown.

Results: Overall, heterochronic weighting proved successful in quantifying the paedomorphic and peramorphic changes in horseshoe crab characteristics. Of the four clades studied, two (Bellinurina and Austrolimulidae) were found to have statistically significant occurrences of heterochrony, with Bellinurina trending towards paedomorphic characteristics and Austrolimulidae trending towards peramorphic characteristics. The Paleolimulidae clade was characterized as having non-significant  heterochronic weightings, while the Limulidae showed a slight peramorphic trend that could be explained by random evolution, not necessarily a concerted trend. More extreme heterochronic weightings (both positive and negative) were associated with the evolutionary transition to non-marine habitats, as was the case for both Bellinurina and Austrolimulidae clades.

Why is this study important? First and foremost, this study is important because it developed a method for quantifying instances of heterochrony, which has not been studied in a combined phylogenetic and ecological context. This gives insight into the interaction between ecology and heterochrony, especially as an evolutionary mechanism. For example, it is noteworthy that both clades that transitioned to non-ancestral nonmarine environments (Bellinurina and Austrolimulidae) experienced higher rates of heterochrony, suggesting that greater ecological change may correlate with increased likelihood for developmental changes in horseshoe crabs. However, it is also important to recognize that environmental affinity is not the only factor influencing heterochrony, or else Bellinurina and Austrolimulidae would have developed in the same way, trending towards either paedomorphic or peramorphic characteristics. The opposite trajectories of the two clades suggests that environmental pressures may increase heterochrony, but underlying genetic factors determine the direction of development.

The big picture: The process of heterochronic weighting developed in this study has the potential to advance the field of paleobiology, as the author was now able to quantify paedomorphy and peramorphy throughout evolutionary history. This allows for a deeper understanding of the relationship between an evolutionary mechanism and other factors, such as ecological affinity or evolutionary relatedness. However, as this study is so far the only study to have employed heterochronic weighting so far, the success rate of this process is limited to horseshoe crabs. Therefore, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of this method for heterochrony in other species groups.

Citation: Lamsdell, J. C. (2020). A new method for quantifying heterochrony in evolutionary lineages. Paleobiology, 47(2), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2020.17