Monday, June 11, 2012

Scientific misconceptions, publication stress and criticism of molecular ecology as a research field





Posted by Erik Svensson

At Juha Merilä's research group blog, EGRU-blog, one often finds very interesting and provocative posts, that stimulates self-reflection and critical thinking. Here is one such post, which raises some critical questions about the field of molecular ecology and the lack of rigour among some of the scientists defining themselves as belonging to this novel field.

This short post actually refers to a recent Invited Review, which is likely to upset some molecular ecologists, as it is very provocative and questions much of the research practices in this very young and technologically-oriented discipline. I do not necessarily endorse everything in this article, and some points that are discussed are beyond my expertise and research interests. As for myself, I do not get very upset or feel very threatened by the message, because I am not a molecular ecologist (and will never become one), even though we have used molecular techniques in our research lab for several years now, and published several papers in the journal Molecular Ecology as well (e. g. this, this and this).

But using molecular techniques, like we have done in these studies, and even endorsing them, is not the same thing as being a molecular ecologist, in my opinion. It is not even enough to publish in the journal Molecular Ecology, I think. I, for myself,  would never define myself as molecular ecologist. Rather, I define myself as an old-fashioned evolutionary biologist interested in the ecological aspects of evolutionary change. Or sometimes I simply define myself an evolutionary ecologist, who is prepared to use observations, field and lab experiments, quantitative genetics and molecular techniques, depending on what is needed and what question that is being adressed.

In contrast, molecular ecology as a field, as I perceive it, is a primarily a discipline defined by techniques and the use of molecular markers, rather than being defined by research questions. And that is why I have never been very interested in this field, as I tend to be more interested in conceptual problems in ecology and evolution, while not being hostile towards new techniques, when they help to solve these classical problems (which is not always the case, however). Molecular Ecology partly grew out from behavioural ecology during the eighties and nineties, as new molecular methods for determining paternity in birds and other animals were developed (first DNA-fingerprinting and later microsattelites). Later, the field came to include many other research questions being adressed by the use of molecular markers, such as phylogeography and molecular population genetic structure etc.

The current review is - interestingly - published in Molecular Ecology - which I think is to the benefit of this outlet as it shows some self-criticism of the same field that the journal is built upon. Hopefully, this article will help to promote self-reflection and critical thinking, both among molecular ecologists (the main target), but also other biologists using molecular techniques. The paper is Open Acess and can be downloaded here. 

 Here are some excerpts, and quite critical and provocative quotations from the paper (Abstract and full reference given below this post):

"Many misconceptions in the various subdisciplines of molecular ecology arise as a consequence of the huge amount of data that can be relatively easily and rapidly generated and analysed. There are many more automated DNA sequencers than classes in population genetic theory, and as self-educated molecular ecologists contribute in professional service, we sometimes see misconceptions perpetuated by journal authors, reviewers and editors."

And:

"At the end of this review, many readers will still believe that if they can properly format data for mega (Tamura et al. 2011) or arlequin(Excoffier et al. 2005), they do not need population genetic theory, they can pick it up along the way, or all the information they need is in the manual. Considering the high error rate (49.9%) in publications of a simple calculation of a population genetic parameter revealed bySchenekar & Weiss (2011), our answer is this: about half of you are right."


Finally, here is some very harsh criticism against the data publication culture in the field of molecular ecology,  and the tendency to crank out too many papers, with too many authors and ignoring much of the classic work that has already been published and which would be relevant to cite:





Abstract: The field of molecular ecology has burgeoned into a large discipline spurred on by technical innovations that facilitate the rapid acquisition of large amounts of genotypic data, by the continuing development of theory to interpret results, and by the availability of computer programs to analyse data sets. As the discipline grows, however, misconceptions have become enshrined in the literature and are perpetuated by routine citations to other articles in molecular ecology. These misconceptions hamper a better understanding of the processes that influence genetic variation in natural populations and sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions. Here, we consider eight misconceptions commonly appearing in the literature: (i) some molecular markers are inherently better than other markers; (ii) mtDNA produces higher FST values than nDNA; (iii) estimated population coalescences are real; (iv) more data are always better; (v) one needs to do a Bayesian analysis; (vi) selective sweeps influence mtDNA data; (vii) equilibrium conditions are critical for estimating population parameters; and (viii) having better technology makes us smarter than our predecessors. This is clearly not an exhaustive list and many others can be added. It is, however, sufficient to illustrate why we all need to be more critical of our own understanding of molecular ecology and to be suspicious of self-evident truths.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

A new doctor on May 25 2012: Anna Runemark

As expected, Anna Runemark succesfully defended her excellent PhD-thesis on May 25 2012, and lab members and department colleagues celebrated this with a great party on the evening the same day. Below are some pictures from the party in the Ecology Building (thankyou to the photographer My Gustafsson who also has her own photoblog which you can visit here). 



Anna was understandably very happy after getting her lizard present from her co-advisor Bengt Hansson. 



Erik with the Faculty Opponent Prof. Scott V. Edwards (Harvard University)



It was great to have four out of my five previous PhD-students with me this memorable evening. Here with Fabrice Eroukhmanoff (left, currently in Norway) and the new doctor Anna Runemark (right). 



Jessica Abbott also seemed to have a good time... 



...as had hopefully also the other Jessica (Dr. Ware, from Rutgers University), who was a member of the thesis committé and was sitting close to Scott Edwards during the dinner. 



New postdoc Lesley Lancaster was probably a bit overwhelmed and still jetlagged from her recent arrival from the US. 

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Our new book "The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology" is now out!















Posted by Erik Svensson

Together with my colleague Ryan Calsbeek at Dartmouth College (USA), I am pleased to announce that our new edited volume "The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology" (Published by Oxford University Press) is now out!

This volume marks the 80-year anniversary of late population geneticist Sewall Wright's first formulation of the Adaptive Landscape concept, which subsequently became so influential in population genetics, ecology and evolutionary biology. Both Ryan and I hope that this book will be of interest to both established researchers, postdocs and PhD-students.

We hope that graduate students will digest and discuss the contents of  chapters of this volume as part of reading groups, for instance. We have several prominent chapter contributors, and you can read more about them here.

You can order this book easily, either directly from Oxford,  or from Amazon.com. Order your copy today - before it is sold out!

Friday, May 18, 2012

Fusing theory and data: a plea for help from Dan Bolnick

Posted by Erik Svensson


I got a request from Andrew Hendry, who in turn got a request from Dan Bolnick (University of Texas, at Austin) about the relationship between theory and data. There is a blog post at the  blog by Andrew Hendry's lab entitled "Fusing theory and data: a plea for help from Dan Bolnick". You might want to read the blog post by Dan and provide your comments and suggestions here, as I have done. This is an excellent example of the kind of scientific discussions that we could (and should) have on blogs, rather than keeping them at local coffee rooms. So take the opportunity to provide input and be part of the global research campus!

When Biologists move to the dark side: working hand in hand with physicists to understand the role of color in the evolution of species


 PART 2

 *BY MAREN WELLENREUTHER, ANNA RUNEMARK AND MIKKEL BRYDEGAARD

 

Did you know that species can be measured as aerosols? Using lasers and dark field spectroscopy for remote classification of animals.

To improve the temporal and spatial resolution of insect movement, we started to think about novel ways to use species color information to track individual movement and interactions. At one of our meetings, the Physicists suggested to use LIDAR technologies and dark field spectroscopy to track the movement of individual damselflies as they had discovered that they could be treated just like large bio-aerosols. Laser radar or LIDAR stands for Light Detection And Ranging and is typically used to remotely measure the size distributions and composition of aerosols in the atmosphere. Recently, fluorescence LIDARs were developed  for the detection of biological aerosols in relation to bio-warfare such as anthrax, but they are slowly getting discovered by other scientists and are starting  to be applied outside this area. In this context, it should be noted that Radar technology is  of limited in insect detection because the small size of insects means that they are often too small to be detected by the Radar-wavelengths and hence no discrimination can be provided. , LIDARs, on the other hand, have the capability to capture fine scale temporal and spatial insect movements, as well as capture multiple color/polarisation details. Due to these characteristics, LIDARs can capture multiple movements in time and space and classify flying aerosol particles (e.g. insects) into discrete groups (e.g. species and sexes). We have shown these applications of LIDAR technologies in field feasibility studies here (Brydegaard, Guan et al. 2009), here (Guan, Brydegaard et al. 2010) and here (Brydegaard, Lundin et al. 2010).



Figure from (Runemark, Wellenreuther et al. 2012). Setup of the experiment. T: Newtonian telescope. C: Calibration site, B: Dark box termination. Light is collected by a 1mm UV fiber in the focal plane of the telescope and fed to a compact spectrometer. Distance from telescope to termination was 95 m of which the first 55 m cover grassland and the remaining 40 m cover the river Klingavälsån in Skåne, Sweden.


In addition to the use of LIDARs, it is also possible to use sunlight-based passive sensing methods to study flying insects. One passive sensing method, which is more economic and thus might be of interest to research groups with little funding, makes the use of sunlight and uses the back-scattering of animals (reflexes) that intersect the field of view. This method is called dark field spectroscopy (see e.g. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=06134630). By analyzing the spectral signature (color) of the reflex, one can classify insects to species level and even separate sexes (if they differ in color). By applying this method, we could determine the sex of each damselfly individual that intersected the field of view, and this allowed us to study, for instance, sex specific activity patterns in relation to temperature and wind speed (Runemark, Wellenreuther et al. 2012). This setup also has the advantage of capturing interactions that occur at fast temporal scales, which, in contrast, are impossible to capture with the human eye. Just think of individual damselflies chasing each other above the river surface. In such a situation, where many damselflies belonging to different species and sexes interact in a dynamic interplay, the human eyes are not capable to capture the temporal and spatial resolution of such species interactions. The passive sensing setup, however, allowed us to study both pre-copula mating interactions between a male and female crossing the river (a female crosses the telescopes field of view approximately 0.1 seconds after a male) and males chasing after females (a male crosses the telescopes field of view approximately 1 second after a female).



Figure from (Runemark, Wellenreuther et al. 2012). Interactions between Calopteryx males and females. Note that there is a high blue peak just to the left of zero, indicating that it is quite common that males appear very shortly before females. This is most likely due to precopulas crossing the river. Approximately one second after a female has passed, there is a higher probability of a male passing too, probably males chasing the female. As expected this peak is less well-defined as the variation in distance is larger for chasing males than for precopulas.


Another interesting application of electro optical systems is the study of nocturnal migration in birds. Traditionally, nocturnal bird migration has been studied using RADARs, thermal cameras or moon watching. LIDAR systems, however, can significantly improve on those methods because LIDARs capture information about the color and plumage microstructure of migrating species. With this color information, it is then possible to classify some of the birds to the species level, as it is shown in the Figure below. 




Lessons learned: What we as Biologists have learned from working with physicists

Color is of utmost importance in many animal systems, and it is therefore clear that many biologists wish to study and quantify color. The first step when doing so is to realize that this is not a trivial undertaking, and that we all need to first take a step back and carefully think about what we really want to do. Think of the photons as living beings, where are they born? Where do they go, what do they do and how do they change before their death when your detect them? What part of the animal do we want to study, what spatial and temporal resolution do we want, which animal is the receiver of the color signal and so on.  

Where from now? Future perspectives

Some of the applications described in this blog post have implications for the study of vector-borne diseases, the study of pollination, quantification of habitat availability for conservation issues, presence/absence of agricultural pests, and the study of predator prey interactions. We are collaborating with a Pan-African spectroscopy network, and in September, we will hold a workshop on realistic remote sensing methods for entomology. The aim is to remotely determine the flight direction, blood meal sizes and individual age of insects. We are looking for new biological questions that these spectroscopy groups, which are dispersed over 6 African countries, could address using setups that are similar to that described above (Runemark, Wellenreuther et al. 2012). We, therefore, greatly welcome comments and ideas in response to this blog post. The member countries are from east Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Mali, Ivory Coast and Senegal. If you wish to collaborate with any of the research groups, please contact Mikkel.Brydegaard@fysik.lth.se.

Some basic advice for biologists that would like to measure color

  1. Read up on the vision system of your study species to make sure that the spectral domains you study are actually what they – or for instance their predators use. This might mean that you need to adjust your measuring setup to the question posed (e.g. if you study sexually selected traits the vision system of the study species is of interest, whereas that of the predator is more relevant if you want to study crypsis).
  2. Standardize the setup, including the light environment whenever possible. It is also whortwhile to spend  a little time on making a standardized photobox because this will save you time in the long-run, when it comes to the evaluation of your data. In addition, using standardized setups ensures that you obtain more accurate data.
  3. When standardized illumination cannot be used, use a ColorChecker reference board to characterize the spectral bands of your imaging system for the given situation.
  4. When correcting for the spectral flatness and the illumination profile, you should get diffuse reflectances between zero and one.
  5. To measure ‘color’ of background environments, measurements that are taken over an entire day cycle are ideal. If that is not possible to achieve, try to take your measurements at the same time of the day, facing the same cardinal direction. Considering the radiative transport in the atmosphere, vegetation, canopies and water environment are complex issues that the remote sensing community has had to deal with for decades. In fact, there are even journals  that are dedicated to this particular topic.
  6. Use polarization filters in front of the flash and objective to avoid specular reflexes – the shiny white reflex on, for instance, a tomato. These reflexes do not  contain any valid information about the color of the tomato, and we need to, therefore, avoid them. This principle is, however, not applicable to species which have structural colors, such as the Calopteryx damselfly species that we study. For an example of how color can be quantified for such animals, see (Brydegaard, Guan et al. 2009).
  7. If the character studied is represented in a biologically relevant way by the RGB bands in e.g. commercially available cameras, the best way to make use of the information is to use the information given in each pixel. This provides information on, for instance, the variance in addition to the mean, see (Brydegaard, Runemark et al. 2012) for an example.
  8. Be aware that a large number of commercially available multispectral and hyper spectral imagers are capable of capturing continuous spectra in every pixel, or images at all wavelength visible to your study species. Systems with a few spectral bands can easily be built at home using cameras and filters wheels of the shelf.
  9.  It is important to take color vision into account when designing experiments. It is of limited use with, for instance, mate choice trials in glass or plastics boxes for a species with a sexually selected ornament in the UV domain, as glass and plastic might filter out the relevant part of the UV spectrum.
  10. Don’t be afraid to knock on the door of the Physics department at your facility, they might just have the equipment you are looking for. Starting a communication process with physicists can help with your ideas and experiments, but this communication can also help the physicists to think about new problems that are biologically relevant. The problems that biologists face when studying the natural world the are seldom trivial and the challenge that these questions bring to a physicist might be both stimulating and entertaining from a Physics and engineering perspective.

 References




Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Minisymposium May 24 2012: "Biogeography and Evolution"




We are happy to announce an exciting Minisymposium entitled "Biogeography and Evolution" on May 24 2012 that will take place on the afternoon the day preceeding Anna Runemarks PhD-thesis defence (May 25). We have four excellent speakers that will present some exciting talks this afternoon. This symposium is open for everyone, whether from the Biology Department of from elsewhere. Full details of the programme and the titles of the talks are presented below:


Minisymposium on Biogeography and 

Evolution
                 
May 24, 13.00 - 16.00                               

"Blue Hall", Ecology Building, Department of Biology, Lund

13.00-13.40 Scott V. Edwards (Harvard University, USA)  “The phylogeography-phylogenetics continuum: a look to the future”

13.50-14.20 Jessica Ware (Rutgers University, USA) "Here be dragons: biodgeography and age of Petaluridae, the petaltail dragonflies"

14.30-14.50 Coffee

14.50 - 15.20 Alexandre Antonelli (Gothenburg University, Sweden) "Ecology meets Biogeography: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Study Neotropical Diversification"

15.30- 15.50 Folmer Bokma (Umeå University, Sweden) ”Why species may not adapt”

15.50 - 16.00 Discussion and concluding remarks

Symposium open for all interested. No registration required.

Welcome!


Bengt Hansson, Anna Runemark & Erik Svensson


Thursday, May 10, 2012

On sexual selection, non-ecological speciation and species coexistence



Next week's lab-meeting will focus on a topic that is closely connected to our coming ESF-funded workshop in August 2012 about non-ecological and non-adaptive speciation: The problem how weakly ecologically differentiated species might still coexist, in spite of being formed by sexual selection and when there are no or weak niche differences in between them. A recent paper in Nature presents a new model that aims to solve this problem (Abstract, link and authors posted below). You can download this paper here.

Time and place of lab-meeting as usual: "Argumentet" at 13.30, Wednesday May 16.



Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence despite ecological equivalence

  • Leithen K. M’Gonigle,
  • Rupert Mazzucco,
  • Sarah P. Otto
  • & Ulf Dieckmann
Nature
 
484,
 
506–509
 
(26 April 2012)
 
doi:10.1038/nature10971
Received
 
Accepted
 
Published online