The Return! / The Urban Wild Part 1

GOLLY it’s been a while hasn’t it?? So now that it’s been almost a year since I began my “little” hiatus it is high time I got back into the saddle. I’d apologize for the length of said hiatus, but I had three jobs and wasn’t sleeping well for a good chunk of it so I APOLOGIZE TO NO ONE. I’ve actually been on just two jobs for a little while, now, but only recently started thinking to myself that I needed something to suck up more of my time. No really, I sit in my room and stare at the pictures of jellyfish on the wall and wonder what to do with the free time I actually have.

I have a problem.

But my problem means fun stuff for those few interwebbers out there still interested in what I have to say! Yaaaay!…?

I’d like to pick up right where I left off, answering some questions/addressing topics brought up in my little informal Facebook survey.

“How do animals adapt to urban areas, Are humans part of the biosphere? (if so what should our role be in conservation)”

Although I can quickly and easily answer this with a resounding YES, this is an excellent question that merits a longer response. Too often humans consider themselves separate from nature; we and our cities and town are outside the “natural world” even though we built our cities right in the “natural world”. Growing up, I would have not considered going to the tidepools on the beach near my house “getting out in nature”. I could see Taco Time from there, no way that’s “nature”. Do these things somehow, in their proximity from humanity, become domestic? No, it just indicates how separate most people feel from “real” nature.

Why is this? When you think about it, there is quite a few species that have found ways to thrive around humans. Squirrels, songbirds and rodents thrive in urban environments. Omnivores like raccoons, foxes and coyotes are also doing well. Others have niches that are in direct conflict with human development. Larger shore birds (herons, cranes), amphibians and sea turtles (to name just a few) are seriously impacted when people start developing around their homes. In the cases of the birds and amphibians, proximity and/or building right on top of their habitat drives them out, while sea turtles experience lower fertility because ocean-front high rises make beaches too cool for their sand-buried nests. Finally there are some species that humans just do not like, either due to real or imagined impact on themselves or their livestock. Wolves are making a comeback after being hunted to local extinction (exterminated from a given area) because of the danger they posed to livestock. While reptiles such as snakes and crocodilians excite an unreasonable amount of fear, to the point that some areas of the US host “Rattlesnake Round Ups” in an effort to exterminate an animal that is more danger to the vermin around their trash than to them.

Seriously, why be afraid of snakes? They have the WORST aim.

Getting into how animals adapt to life in the big city (beyond the basics, like learning the bus schedule, finding the best cafes, etc), knowing the species of animal in question is as important as knowing how a particular population adapts. Different species have different lifestyles better suited toward adapting to urban environments. I will get into more detail on this in my next post.

Things You Need to Be Aware Of: Serpentine Book Review

Ladies, gentlemen, crazy chicks, less-than-gentle-men, there is something you need to be aware of, and that something is Mark Laita. Specifically, you need to be aware of his book, Serpentine.

People, I love me some good photography, particularly animal photography. If you know anything about my family, you know that camera film runs in our bloodstream. For those of you born in the nineties, camera film was the memory card of ye olden camera that also didst not come with thy phone. Phones also were on cords. Barbaric, huh? Anyway, though I love photography and wildlife photography in general, I do not own much in the way of photography books. Probably because those wildlife photographers fill their books with majestic as hell animals, in majestic as hell landscapes but zero info on any of said majesty. Occasionally you get a caption, something like, “Honey badger at rest” or “Honey badger eating grubs” or “Honey badger not caring”. You know, things you could tell from looking at the photo. So I generally enjoy looking for animal encyclopedias or guide books with good photography. It doesn’t always work out, but sometimes I find things like Serpentine.

Serpentine presents snakes in a more vivid and natural way than I have ever seen in a book. Laita dispenses with distracting scenery so the snakes are all viewed against a black background. This makes colors pop in such a way that even typically drab species stand out (like the king cobra, below) while bright snakes shine with colors you can almost taste (though I would advise against tasting the above Vogel’s pit viper).

Furthermore, there is real motion in the snakes’ poses. I don’t just mean that the snakes seem to have been moving when the camera went off, although it is obvious most of them were (unlike many guidebooks I’ve seen that utilize a lot of resting photos). I mean Laita seems to have captured the way the snakes move in these still shots. Sorry if that’s confusing, but there’s really no other way to describe it. These photos move.

The back pages of the book even contains a photographic index (useful considering there are no page numbers) of all the featured snake species, with a brief set of facts for each. My only disappointment (besides the randomly placed and semi-pertinent quotes) is that the fact sets for each species are pretty short (name, genus, species, habitat, food, danger to humans, etc). I haven’t heard of many of the snakes featured and would love to know more.

Regardless, this is a thing that I think everyone needs to be aware of. I completely adore Serpentine and I already have my eye on his other book, Sea, for my birthday (which is like, 7 months away, so you can tell how excited I am about this).

Info

Laita, Mark. 2013. Serpentine. New York. Abrams Publishing.

 

NOTE: I did not receive any compensation for this review, but if Abrams Publishing is feeling grateful, Sea would be a great way to say “thank you”.

The Scientific Method (Plus Ponies)

I am a bad teacher, everyone. Absolutely terrible. For there is one topic with which I should have covered in my very first post. A topic that is essential for the study of science but has universal applicability. I am referring to the Scientific Method (which I am going to put in capitols cause it is just that important).

Besides providing a framework for research in the hard sciences (biology, physics, chemistry, etc) the Scientific Method is applicable in many other, squishier sciences (psychology, sociology, etc). Furthermore, an understanding of it can help you think critically in everyday life.

First step is asking a question. This can be just about anything. How much blood is in my body? What stressors affect protein formation? Are ponies ticklish? This step is the “get the juices flowing” step. It doesn’t need to be very specific, but it should be asking a question for which you don’t already know the answer.

Now you do some research. Read up on your topic; articles on past experiments, textbooks, anything. Just get a feel for what is already known. This will refine (or possibly change) your topic, narrowing the focus until you have a manageable chunk to work with. It should also lead you to…

…your hypothesis! Any science teacher will start off by explaining that this should be an “if…then…” statement. Not a question, or a suggestion, a STATEMENT. With your background research you should know what you want to do and have an idea of what will happen. “If I tickle the pony, then it will twitch and whinny; displaying ticklishness.” HOWEVER, the statement does not necessarily need to include the words “if” and “then”. But it should be implied. Some hypotheses are also very long statements and can get cumbersome if you’re a stickler about the “if…then…” phrasing. For instance, I could write my pony hypothesis like this: “By rapidly scratching a pony behind the foreleg, I will induce an immediate, impulsive twitch and excited whinny, as a result of the pony’s ticklishness.” Same hypothesis, but different phrasing. It also has a better explanation of what I plan to do next.

That next step is the experiment! This is the good part; it’s where the action is. Your research should have helped you develop an experimental plan and some of it was explained in your hypothesis. You will have independent variables (variables you have control over, such as pony tickling) and dependent variables (variables in response to the independent variables, like pony whinnies). A good experiment should also consider different factors that are potentially influencing your subject (EX. could the pony be reacting to pests or other ponies?) and address them. Compare these factors separately (EX. Observe pony’s response to flies in isolation vs. response to other ponies sans flies) and ALWAYS include a control (Ex. Observe pony in isolation without any stimulus). Every experiment needs a control to show the significance of the response to your independent variable. If I tickle a pony and it twitches and whinnies I can show doesn’t do so in response to any other kinds of stimulus, I do not have good results until I can prove that ponies do not just twitch and whinny spontaneously. Furthermore, I need a large enough sample size to prove this is typical pony behavior. If I just choose one or even five or ten ponies, those samples are too small to be considered representative. They could all just be weird ponies. So pick a sample that’s large enough to represent to population in question, but easy enough to manage experimentally (100 ponies out of a 400 pony herd would be representative and manageable). Deciding on a sample size is difficult, not only should it be as large as possible, but also random (to prevent selection bias). I could pick out 100 ponies to sample, but if I didn’t draw the names out of a hat, or something, someone reading my paper could say I picked ponies based on their ability to confirm my hypothesis.

Now my pony example is great for many experiments in biology, but how does this translate to subjects in which you do not sample clearly individual things? Samples can be a given volume or mass of a substance. An experiment in water quality may use multiples vials (of the same volume) of water and the number of vials would be the sample size. In chemistry, the sample size may be the number of trials you perform (say, distilling samples of a certain chemical multiple times).

Once you’ve sampled enough/repeated the experiment enough times, you can analyze your results. Use appropriate statistical tests to compare the results of from testing each independent variable and the control. Find their significance. Does this support or destroy your hypothesis? Additionally, was there anything that could have affected results? How well were variables controlled? Was there something you only realize now you should have tested? Explain.

Finally you can report your results. Tell the world what you found! But tell them everything. Show your raw data, your statistical test results, photos of your experimental set up, explain your methods, your background research, EVERYTHING. If you leave things out, this weakens the strength of your conclusions. It looks like you’re hiding something. Even explain the weaknesses of the experiment or potential problems with results. Especially if you can explain why you didn’t do this or that thing (EX. did not observe response of ponies to non-fly bugs because none were present around the herd). Maybe explain that you realize there’s an experiment you can do as background research for the topic as a whole. Admitting weaknesses, particularly if you’re going to follow up on them, can only give you more credibility as a scientist. It also allows other researchers to follow your lead, researching related topics with your suggested improvements.

Understanding the Scientific Method helps you understand new research and see how trustworthy it is even if you’re not a scientist.

Here’s a little life example: In 2005, some folks decided to see how reptiles and amphibians react to microgravity. I kid you not, they sent 53 snakes, lizards and frogs into a parabolic flight to see what they’d do during the zero gravity portion of the flight (sorry, no actual herps in space). It sounds hilarious (and looks hilarious, I’ll post the videos if I can find them) but it also answers a very interesting question about how these animals orient themselves in relation to gravity. The analysis was also very thoughtful, regarding explanations for behavior, lifestyles of each species &etc. But these were only 53 animals from 23 different species and there are thousands of reptile species in the world. Also, only random in the sense that they used whatever they could get their hands on for the experiment. Some regard for a balance of snakes vs. lizards vs. amphibians, but they were restricted by what they could access for the experiment. All in all it was a great idea, with great reporting, a good set up, but a weak sample and thus weak results. But even though you can’t trust the results, you can see how to repeat and improve upon this experiment. Future snakes in space!

Of course, you can also use the Scientific Method in everyday life. Reading the news or looking at a new product, you know to consider where assertions or statistics came from and how they were collected. Maybe it’s not necessary for everything you hear or learn, but isn’t it empowering to know HOW to trust what you hear and learn? To be serious for once (I know, HEAVEN FORBID), I think true intelligence is based less on education, than inquisitiveness. Just that. Want to know more and wanting to know what exactly you do not know. Never let anyone tell you you’re dumb for asking a legitimate question. How else will you learn?

And now, because I can’t sustain the serious, a pony in a sweater:

Sources

Wassersug, Richard J, Lesley Roberts, Jenny Gimian, Elizabeth Hughes, Ryan Sanders, Darren Devison, Jonathan Woodbury and James C O’Reilly. 2005. The behavioral responses of amphibians and reptiles to microgravity on parabolic flights. Zoology 108(2):107-20.

Photo credit McDougall, Rob. 2013. “Shetland Ponies Wearing Fair Isle Cardigans”. Rob McDougall, Photographer and Filmmaker. 22 November, 2013. < http://robmcdougall.com/recentjan2013.html&gt;

Modern Dragons

Last night, in honor of my dad’s birthday and the 3 happy weeks he spent in high school reading Tolkien (and not doing much else), we went to the Imax to see The Hobbit. Despite seeing all of one foot, nostril and eye, Smaug stole the show for me. Though those shaggy ponies were a close second and I disapprove of excessive burninating, I have a soft spot in my heart for all things scaly. Especially if they’re dragons. Dragons dragons dragons. This is probably why snakes and the less derpy lizards hold such a fascination for me. Some kids had imaginary friends in grade school, I had an imaginary King Cobra named Spike.

Fast forward to undergraduate senior thesis and I discovered that the awesomeness of the ophidians was not limited to their stupidly vast variety of species. They, dare I say it, have some bitchin’ chemical compounds at their disposal. I am of course referring to snake venom, though as I pointed out in my previous post (https://dailyscienceblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/eau-de-my-thesis/), pheromones have a lot to bring to the table as well. Lord knows what kind of table, but if there are snakes involved, I am THERE.

It is easy to write off venom from any animal, be it snake, scorpion or platypus, as death and/or pain juice. Nasty stuff, sure, but venom produced by a given animal is specific to that animal’s needs. To clarify, venom is injected via bite or sting while poison is consumed. Both contain harmful chemicals, toxins. Venom components are largely proteins that perform a variety of functions, including immobilization, rapid death, necrosis, tracking and defense. Let me stop you before you look up necrosis and scar yourself for life: necrotizing venom rots tissue and assists in the “pre-digestion” of prey. Spiders like it, pit vipers like it, we DON’T. But it’s a great/gross example of how certain components have overlapping functions in the same or different species; necrotoxins assist in pre-digestion for brown recluse spiders, and provide powerful defensive bite; vampire bats need an anti-coagulant (chemical that prevents blood-clotting) in order to feed, but certain snakes use a heavier dose in their venom to provoke rapid death by hemorrhage; and immobilizing neurotoxins may merely hinder (allowing other toxins or offensive means to kill), or immobilize to the point of respiratory failure as occurs from TTX (pufferfish) venom. Toxins involved in defensive envenomation run the gamut and results range from the mild stings of bees and platypi, to the bullet-like stab of the tarantula hawk wasp to the lethal bites of black widows and mambas. This is because, except for perhaps the non-predatorial bees and the playpi, defensive stings and bites are not specialized and use the same toxins as those used in prey capture. Makes sense, right? Tracking components, which allow snakes to retrieve prey released following envenomation and avoid injuries sustained from tackling their dinner, are the only truly specialized part of venom.

Now that I have everyone thinking of how venomous snakes and assorted creepy crawlies can kill you, here are some numbers to drive home the point: in the world there are an upwards of 100,000 known venomous species (that include insects, arachnids, jellies, anenomes, snails, fish, reptiles, fleas and ticks), those species together possess an arsenal of over 20,000,000 toxins, of those 10,000 are known to science and 1,000 of those are studied in depth. Before you succumb to the warm fuzzies (or seizures of terror), I have a few more numbers. Those thousand toxins studied have provided us with over a dozen diagnostic tools and 20 drugs, some of which use toxin dosages that dance a fine Conga line between useless and deadly. Consider: Russel’s viper can kill you, but a derivative of its venom is used to measure clotting time in lupus patients; type 2 diabetics can thank the gila monster for their toxin that stimulates insulin production in the pancreas; viper venom anticoagulants have been around since the late sixties; and Brazilian pit vipers spawned the ACE inhibitor class of drugs used in battling hypertension. Much more is in the works, such as the cancer cell tag derived from deathstalker scorpions that could cut down the size of detectable tumors from a billion cells to a couple hundred. Effectively researched, the medicinal possibilities are endless. So they may not spew fire or fly, but snakes (and their less dragon-like, venomous compatriots) hold some downright mystical proteins in their jaws.

See? Black mamba is smiling, he just wants to say hi.

 

Source

Kardong, K. V. 2002. Colubrid Snakes and Duvernoy’s “Venom” Glands. Journal of Toxicology. 21.1 & 2: 1-19.

Holland, Jennifer S. Feb 2013. “The Bite that Heals”. National Geographic. 223: 64-83.

Photo credits me, komodo dragon credit Woodland Park Zoo, black mamba credit Monroe Reptile Zoo.

Eau de My Thesis

I swore to myself I would save any posts relating to my senior thesis for emergencies. The poster is sitting literally six inches from my hand as I type, and since I wouldn’t have to study much to post anything on it, it feels like a cop out. However, considering I have done two posts involving blood flow, I thought I’d throw in a little animal behavior.

If you’re ever bitten by a snake and tell the doctor that you were bitten by a “large brown snake”, you are toast. It’s not snake-ist to say they all look alike; the snakes agree. Limit a randy male to visual cues on his chosen lady during mating season and you will reduce the poor guy to tears (assuming snakes cried). Research involving (I kid you not) headless and tailless lady snakes shows that males rely primarily on pheromone cues to orient themselves during copulation. However, without scent cues, he probably wouldn’t have chosen said lady in the first place, so randy male snakes everywhere may rejoice.

As you may understand now, pheromones are pretty important to snakes. Which brings me to the very lovely Psammophis. Their family, the psammophiine snakes, is actually known for scale polishing behaviors involving secretions from the nasal gland. This serves to coat the snake (a female) in a nice, smelly pheromone that will rub off as they move and result in a pheromone trail that mates can follow and competitors can avoid. It’s like that guy at your high school that smothered himself in Axe Body Spray. Everyone avoids him, but the intention is the same; scent trail to LOVE. Or an asthma attack, whatever.

Back to the sweet-smelling Psammies. Besides making a trail o’ love, Psammophis will scale polish as a means of communication. Using their chins and a currently unknown pheromone source, males and females will perform a simple, body length stroke on their mate. This is an automatic action, the snake version of “hey baby”. Females, however, will perform a zig-zag stroke on their chosen male in the presence of other females. This translates roughly to, “Step off, bitch”.

As cool as this sounds, pheromone communication in snakes isn’t very well studied. For some reason folks are more interested in snake venom glands than pheromone glands. So if you’re looking for a thesis topic and snakes make you squeal, then pheromones could be your deal.

Source:

Chippaux, J. P. and K. Jackson (in prep). Snakes of West and Central Africa. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

de Haan, C. C. and A. Cluchier. 2006. Chemical marking behaviour in the psammophiine snakes Malpolon monspessulanus and Psammophis phillipsi. Herpetologica Bonnensis II. 211-212

Shine, R., D. O’Connor, and R. T. Mason. 2000. The problem with courting a cylindrical object: how does an amorous male snake determine which end is which? Journal of Animal Behavior 137: 727-739.