Observations of a Nerd

Weekly Dose of Cute: Bongo, baby!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:25:09 PST

No, not the small little drums. I'm talking about Bongos, the vibrant antelopes:

c/o the Houston Zoo and ZooBorns

Bongos are a kind of large antelope native to the lowlands and some mountains of Africa. They're at least two different subspecies: Tragelaphus eurycerus eurycerus (the lowland bongo) and Tragelaphus eurycerus isaaci (the eastern or mountain bongo). Both subspecies are facing constant threats; the lowland bongo is listed as near-threatened by the IUCN and the mountain bongo is endangered, with more specimens in captivity than in the wild (~400 in Zoos in North America). The eastern bongo is one of the most threatened large mammals in Africa, with the most recent estimates numbering less than 140 animals, far below a minimum sustainable viable population. Captive breeding is this subspecies last shot at survival.

On a completely side note, this reminds me of a Manu Chao song... I'm the king of bongo, baby, I'm the king of bongo-bong. King of the bongo, king of the bongo...

Scientia Pro Publica

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:55:58 PST

Science is for the people... so welcome, people, to the newest edition of Scientia Pro Publica! Sit down, buckle up, and get ready to be taken on a wild ride that includes everything from vampires to vegetarians, the dawn of the universe to current affairs, and anything in between!

While the ghosts and goblins may have gone back into hiding after this weekend's All Hallow's Eve, the debate still rages at Southern Fried Science as to whether vampires can survive a zombie apocalypse. So if you haven't had enough Halloween, be sure to weigh in your $0.02!

The biosphere seems all shook up about this vegetarian spider that scientists recently found, but not the Bec Crew at Save Your Breath For Running Ponies. They explain how Bagheera kiplingi is really a vegetarian for all the wrong reasons.

This edition of Scientia is certainly for the birds - Roger from Birds and Science explains Bird moult allometry, while Jean Paul Perret talks about Second Chances: Rediscovering Lost and Extinct Birds I at Neotropical Birding. There's some fascinating photos and information about Grand Canyon Condors at Reconciliation Ecology. John at DC Birding also talks about his own eBird milestone - so be sure to check them all out!

We move out of the air and into the sea with a disgusting post by Kelsey at Mauka to Makai about big, slimy balls of Marine Mucilage. And once you're done grossing yourself out, you can travel back in time and learn why giant sea scorpions got so big thanks to a great post by Greg Laden. And while we're in the past, be sure to take a look at human origins with Reexamining Ardipithecus ramidus in Light of Human Origins by Eric from The Primate Diaries. Go waaaaay back and check out Greg Laden's explanation about the age of the universe in his post Universe lets age clue slip. You can bring yourself slowly back to the present by learning a bit more about the history of Botany and the role of Louis Trabut thanks to a nice historical narrative posted at vaviblog.

For those who are more sports-minded, Jackie has posted a great piece about where football and brain science collide (thanks to all those collisions) at New Voices for Research.

As scientists, though, it's not just about the science. We're play a large role outside the lab, and it's good for us to be reminded of our greater affect on society. Dan Vorhaus criticizes the UK's new genomics program while explaing Why the Errors of the Human Provenance Project Will Echo Beyond the U.K.’s Borders over at Genomics Law Report. The program seeks to use DNA and isotope analysis of tissue from asylum seekers to evaluate their nationality, which is a tough ethical issue that we now face thanks to advances in genetics research.

ScriptPhD reminds us that A Picture is Worth a Thousand Trees as we read about deforestation, climate change, and carbon emissions. This post is a deep and fascinating look into the science and policy of global warming.

Finally, we are reminded that we must be humble as we seek to understand the world around us through science. As Eric from The Primate Diaries points out, science is the worship of doubt far more than it is the worship of truth.

That's it for this edition of Scientia Pro Publica! Be sure to get your submissions in for the next edition! You can use this handy submission form. And if you're interested in hosting Scientia at your blog, be sure to get in touch with Grrlscientist ASAP!

Happy Halloween

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:00:01 PDT

Trick or treat! To me, nothing says Halloween like a good, old fashioned parasite. So scroll down for a preview of next month's Sci-Fi Worthy Parasite! Enjoy :)

.

..

...

....

.....

Picture credit

Looking for something to do Jan 15-17th?

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:31:56 PDT

Registration is now open. Do if you want to go, register! You can even see who else is going.

Yes, one of those people is me. I've given in to the hordes of sci bloggers saying I just have to come. So if you go, you can meet me in person! Now if that's not a reason to go, I don't know what is!

This Month's Sci-Fi Worthy Parasite: Taenia solium

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:36:00 PDT

It's that time of the year again... the temperature is dropping, pumpkins are being carved, and there's that creepy rustling in the woods as you walk by. All Hallow's Eve fast approaches, and with it come tales of mysterious disappearances, strange sightings, and all kinds of things that go bump in the night.

So what better parasite to talk about than one that is sure to give you the heebie-jeebies? It's a parasite that you could have for years and not even know it, until one day you're in the hospital with seizures, headaches, nausea, vomiting, or even altered mental status.

Of course, I'm talking about Taenia solium, better known as the Pork Tapeworm.

The pork tapeworm begins its lifecycle as a little egg being passed in feces by some person who happens to have an adult in their intestines. Once out of the human host, the egg waits to be ingested by its intermediate host - a pig, hence the name.

Once in the pig's gut, the egg hatches, and a small, larval oncosphere travels through the intestinal wall and migrates to other parts of the body. Oncosoheres aim for striated muscles, but can end up just about anywhere, including the brain, liver, and other tissues. Once settled, the oncoshperes develop into cysticerci, small, encapsulated cycsts that wait.

To become an adult, a cysticercus has to be eaten by a human - this happens when people eat infected pork that hasn't been cooked thoroughly. When the cysticercus reaches our guts, it morphs into an adult tapeworm which attaches to the small intestinal lining and begins to grow. Adult worms can get up to 7 meters long - that's over 21 feet. They go about their lives absorbing our nutrients and producing eggs, of which they can produce hundreds of thousands a day.

Let's be honest - tapeworms are creepy enough when they complete their lifecycle the proper way, ending up in our guts as these long, disgusting leeches stealing our food. But the pork tapeworm can do something much more sinister. If a human ingests the eggs directly, without them going into a pig first, then the cysticerci can develop in our tissues instead. These small cysts can be in our muscles, nervous tissue, or even brain.

In people, the cysticerci can go unnoticed, as they evade our immune systems for much of their lives. However, after a variable amount of time, the cysticerci start to degenerate, and our immune systems find them. When this occurs, our immune system goes into overdrive, causing the clinical symptoms of cysticercosis. Depending on where the cysticerci are, the signs are different - but they're worst when the little bugs have been living in our brains (see image on the R). The huge immune offensive our bodies launch can lead to all kinds of neurological problems, and even death. You can come down with the clinical symptoms up to ten years after you get infected.

Taenia solium is found all over the world, from China and Southeast Asia to Latin America. In Mexico, the prevalence of cysticercosis is thought to be as high as 4%, but in other Latin American countries it's as high as 20%. Rates reach as high as 10% in African countries and 16% in Madagascar. In the USA, 221 people died from cysticercosis from 1990-2002, even though the parasite is thought to be eradicated from US pig stocks.

So while you'll be afraid of ghosts or goblins this Halloween, perhaps you should be fearing your dinner more. While chowing down on some nice pork tenderloin or some delicious pork chops, remember that this parasite just might be lurking in an undercooked portion. And you thought the swine flu was the worst thing you could get from Mexican pigs!

Some recipes for conservation

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:51:00 PDT

Remember how I told you all about a wonderful and delicious fish that you can eat guilt-free? Yeah, you remember.

Well, just in case you end up with a nice tasty lionfish and have no idea how to cook it, here's a collection of recipes put together by The Lionfish Hunter himself. Bon appetit!

Weekly Dose of Cute: Bunnies

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:30:42 PDT

What's cuter than bunnies? Pygmy bunnies! What's cuter than pygmy bunnies? Baby pygmy bunnies!

While they're unbelievably cute, these little guys are more than just adorable - they're the last remaining hope for their local population. Pygmy rabbits were once found throughout the Northwestern United States in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, California, and Nevada. In 1990, declining populations due to habitat loss led to the rabbits being listed as threatened, and further decline placed them on the federal endangered species list in 2003.

Recently, searches for wild populations in the Columbia Basin (Washington area) have come up empty-handed, though the cause behind the sudden disappearance in that area is not well understood. The dire situation led to the initiation of a captive breeding program for these minuscule bunnies by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the last group sighted were scooped up for their protection. Genetic work has shown that the sub-population has lost much of its genetic diversity since the 1990s, leading to inbreeding which has hampered their reproductive rate.

The photos above are from the most recent litter of 26 babies produced by proud parents and zookeepers at the Oregon Zoo. These aren't entirely Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits - they had to be interbred with Idaho pygmy rabbits because the Columbia Basin animals were breeding so poorly in captivity. The program hopes to produce animals that have at least 75 percent of their genetic makeup from the Columbia Basin, which will then be release back into the wild. Release studies in Idaho suggest that once they have enough rabbits, re-release into the Columbia Basin will be successful.

However, these rabbits will never do well unless we protect their dwindling shrub-steppe habitat. To date, WDFW, The Nature Conservancy and one private landowner have acquired lands to be managed for pygmy rabbits. Further protections must take place or these baby bunnies will be out of luck. It just goes to show you that any animal can be threatened with extinction by human activities - even those that breed like, well, rabbits.

H/T Zooborns

Climate Change - what's worse than the heat?

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:00:03 PDT

**A post about Climate Change as a part of Blog Action Day 2009**

When people talk about climate change, they, more often than not, talk about global warming. Yes, the effects of increased temperature will be diverse and generally bad for most creatures on Earth, including us. But the most dramatic effect of climate change won't be due to the heat - it will be due to ocean acidification. I might seem biased (being a marine biologist and all), but trust me, the addition of carbon dioxide to the ocean and its subsequent effects will be far worse in the long run than a change in temperature. Not so sure? Let me explain.

I know for most of you it's been a long time since you took a chemistry course, so here's a quick refresher. Acidity of a solution, or its "pH", is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H⁺). The lower the pH, the more acidic, and the higher the concentration of H⁺. The effects we associate with acidity - burning through flesh, for example - are due to the fact that H⁺ ions are extremely reactive with other molecules, and tend to incite chemical reactions.

The astute reader might note here that CO₂ doesn't contain H⁺ ions, or hydrogen at all, for that matter. How can it cause seawater to become more acidic?

The key is in how carbon dioxide reacts with water when it is dissolved. Unlike other gasses, CO₂ doesn't stay in its gaseous form when it becomes aqueous, it reacts almost instantly with water to form H₂CO₃. In turn, this compound, called carbonic acid, tends to release its two hydrogen ions in sequence, becoming bicarbonate and carbonate:
H₂O + CO₂ -> H₂CO₃ -> HCO₃^- + H⁺ -> 2H⁺ + CO₃^2-
It's easy to see how adding CO₂ into the equation would drive the production of hydrogen ions. But, in reality, the reaction is more complex than that. Because seawater is a slush of ions, it's in what is called chemical equilibrium, where ions back and forth between the different forms. This gives seawater natural buffering, which means that adding an acid doesn't directly raise its pH. Extensive experiments have shown that adding CO₂ doesn't just make more hydrogen ions and CO₃^2-. How much CO₂ remains as CO₂, HCO₃^- , and CO₃^2- is influenced by a number of other factors, including the water's temperature and alkalinity.

The equilibrium looks much more like this:
H₂O + CO₂ + CO₃^2- <-> HCO₃^-
The majority of carbon dioxide in seawater ends up as HCO₃^-. As more CO₂ is added, it reacts not only with water to produce HCO₃^- + H⁺, but those hydrogen ions, in turn, react with CO₃^2- to create HCO₃^-. The figure to the right shown the overall change in concentration from 1750s to the mid 1990s; during that time, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, which corresponds to about a 20% increase in the hydrogen ion concentration. If you're really interested in the complex chemistry, check out K. G. Schulz et al's paper that just came out in 2009 - it delves deeply into exactly how this works (and when I say deeply, I mean deeply - good luck if you're not a chemist).

The problem is, many organisms, including corals and photosynthetic algae, need CO₃^2- to form the hard shells that they live in. They use dissolved calcium (Ca²⁺) along with the dissolved carbonate (CO₃^2-) to create calcium carbonate (CaCO₃). They cannot use bicarbonate (HCO₃^-). So as the levels of carbonate drop, it becomes harder and harder for organisms to make calcium carbonate.

This is bad news for coral reefs. Coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem in the marine environment and are crucial for conservation, fisheries, tourism and coastal protection. They make up about 1/6^th of the world's calcium carbonate production, currently producing 900 million tons a year. Scientists predict that the change in seawater chemistry could doom these fragile ecological hot spots, causing the loss of billions of dollars in the fishing industry alone.

But corals aren't the only species that could be affected by reduced carbonate. Small, unicellular amoeba called Foraminifera rely on carbonate. What they lack in size they make up for in impact; foraminifera, or "forams", are one of the most abundant organisms on earth, and create another 1.4 billion tons of calcium carbonate a year, around 25% of the grand total. Similarly, other planktonic creatures are dependent on carbonate, too, like pteropods. Pteropods are small molluscs that are found, in particular, in the southern oceans, where they are a food source for species like krill. As the base of the marine food web in many areas, pteropods are key to the overall health of our oceans, and have been called the "canaries in the coal mine" for ocean health.

It's not just theory that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide relates to a drop in carbonate levels that will hurt these species. Scientists have shown that as carbon dioxide levels rise, the acidity of the ocean is changing, and it is slowing, if not stopping, these organisms from growing. Multiple studies have shown that corals to be inversely affected by increased carbon dioxide and decreased carbonate ions, though the effects do vary. Acidification also harms all kinds of carbonate plankton, larger carbonate organisms like sea urchins, and even certain species of algae. Noise travels further and faster as seawater pH drops, which may impact all kinds of organisms, including fish. But the most devastating loss will likely be in planktonic primary producers like pteropods. A study published in Nature showed that not only do pteropods suffer in reduced carbonate availability, computer modeling suggests that the majority of the southern ocean will become pteropod-uninhabitable by 2100 if we keep emitting carbon dioxide at the rate we do now.

While rising temperatures and melting ice are nothing to sneeze at, completely decimating the base of the marine food web is going to be disastrous. Carbonate-requiring organisms are primary producers which are responsible for the majority of the ocean's estimated 90% contribution to the world's oxygen production - which means the loss of them could have a more devastating impact on atmospheric CO₂ than chopping down all of the world's forests. And that's not even taking into account the loss of biodiversity that will ensue as we take away the bottom of the food chain. The economic losses from decreased fish catch and tourism will be easily in the billions a year.

Climate change is a major issue that our generation and those that follow need to address - but let's remember that it's not just about the heat. Acidification and other affects of carbon output are likely to make an even bigger impact. We need to asses, monitor, and propose solutions for all of the effects of climate change. Now is the time to protect our future - not only on land, but in the water, too.

References
K. G. Schulz, J. Barcelos e Ramos, R. E. Zeebe, & U. Riebesell (2009). CO2 perturbation experiments: similarities and differences between dissolved inorganic carbon and total alkalinity manipulations Biogeosciences, 6, 2145-2153

LANGER, M. (2008). Assessing the Contribution of Foraminiferan Protists to Global Ocean Carbonate Production The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 55 (3), 163-169 DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2008.00321.x

Marubini, F., Ferrier-Pagès, C., Furla, P., & Allemand, D. (2008). Coral calcification responds to seawater acidification: a working hypothesis towards a physiological mechanism Coral Reefs, 27 (3), 491-499 DOI: 10.1007/s00338-008-0375-6

Gattuso, J. (1998). Effect of calcium carbonate saturation of seawater on coral calcification Global and Planetary Change, 18 (1-2), 37-46 DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8181(98)00035-6

Riebesell, U., Zondervan, I., Rost, B., Tortell, P., Zeebe, R., & Morel, F. (2000). Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2 Nature, 407 (6802), 364-367 DOI: 10.1038/35030078

Fine, M., & Tchernov, D. (2007). Scleractinian Coral Species Survive and Recover from Decalcification Science, 315 (5820), 1811-1811 DOI: 10.1126/science.1137094

Kuffner, I., Andersson, A., Jokiel, P., Rodgers, K., & Mackenzie, F. (2007). Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification Nature Geoscience, 1 (2), 114-117 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo100

Orr, J., Fabry, V., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Doney, S., Feely, R., Gnanadesikan, A., Gruber, N., Ishida, A., Joos, F., Key, R., Lindsay, K., Maier-Reimer, E., Matear, R., Monfray, P., Mouchet, A., Najjar, R., Plattner, G., Rodgers, K., Sabine, C., Sarmiento, J., Schlitzer, R., Slater, R., Totterdell, I., Weirig, M., Yamanaka, Y., & Yool, A. (2005). Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms Nature, 437 (7059), 681-686 DOI: 10.1038/nature04095

Weekly Dose of Cute: Teacup Pigs

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:02:50 PDT

Ok, I really tried not to post about this. But come on - they're just so cute. I want ten of them.
And to really make you squeal, some video:

(it's all your fault, Rick. Ever since you posted this on your facebook I couldn't stop thinking about them!)

Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:04:09 PDT

Every year, Blog Action Day seeks unites the world's bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day to raise awareness and trigger a global discussion. This year, 2009, Blog Action Day is focused on Climate Change - like I could even think of resisting! All you bloggers out there, it doesn't matter what you write about - politics, medicine, music or whatever - you can join Blog Action Day and be a part of the global discussion, too. It's in just three days, so register at their website and get involved!

Women to stop liking Sean Connery?

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:31:16 PDT

Boyish good looks -
the next generation of sexy?

Men like Mike Rowe on the outs?

I couldn't help but notice that a new study has come out about the behavioral effects of hormonal contraception. It's all over the science news sites. With titles ranging from the conservative "Pill May Change Attraction" to the bolder "Taking the pill for past 40 years 'has put women off masculine men'"and "The pill 'gives women a taste for boyish men like Zac Efron'," this new publication has swept the media outlets by storm. This idea that birth control might have behavioral side effects isn't new, even I've mentioned this before, as a side note on another study's findings. But the strong tone and conclusions in this review paper seem to have caught the media's attention, causing Grizzly Adams impersonators everywhere to fear that they're soon to be cast out of their lovers' bedrooms in favor of DiCaprio-esque alternatives.

Calm down, manly men. It's just like how the media always starts raving about how scientists have found a "missing link" every time there's a new fossil species identified - mention sex or relationships in a paper, and it's bound to get noticed. And just like the constant "missing link" hype, the whirlwhind response to this paper is unfounded and ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong - I love a good paper about behavior and hormones. But a non-systematic review paper has a lot of holes in it, and this one is no exception.

In the paper, the authors state that "there is emerging evidence that the use of the pill by women can disrupt: (i) the variation in mate preferences across their menstrual cycle; (ii) their attractiveness to men; and (iii) their ability to compete with normally cycling women for access to mates" and that there are "consequences of pill-induced choice of otherwise less-preferred partners for relationship satisfaction, durability and, ultimately, reproductive outcomes."

Let me start by explaining the paper's premise. It's somewhat established scientifically that certain traits that women find attractive - like "manliness" - can vary over the menstrual cycle. When a woman is most fertile, she's more strongly attracted to more masculine men. There's some suggestion that this is because while she may not be able to marry the sexiest, most genetically spectacular man alive, she can sleep with him behind her mate's back when she's highly fertile and get a genetically fantastic kid while still keeping the loser hubby around to take care of him. In turn, scientists have shown that women are sexiest to men when they're most fertile - the theory being that if men sleep with a woman when she is most likely to get pregnant, then they're most likely to pass on their genes. All of these shifts in attractiveness are completely unconscious, so we don't know that we're changing how we see each other over a monthly cycle.

The Culprit?

Hormonal birth controls change the hormones in a woman's cycle. They convince her body that she's pregnant, thus preventing her from going through ovulation-induced changes into that 'high fertility' state. Logically following, this change in hormones might shift how she views men and how men view her, because she's never entering that body phase where all this change in attraction occurs.

Then, the paper's authors conclude, it's likely that the women taking the pill are shifting society's opinion of men, steering towards less masculinity. They're changing the rules, making feminine men more attractive and thus more likely to mate, which they say could have drastic consequences. Since manly men are supposed to contain the 'better' genes, a shift in mate choice could have reproductive repercussions. As one of the co-authors, Dr Virpi Lumma, is quoted as saying: "The ultimate outstanding evolutionary question concerns whether the use of oral contraceptives when making mating decisions can have long-term consequences on the ability of couples to reproduce."

Even on the small scale, they warn that birth control might be dooming relationships, because women are likely to be off birth control before a relationship, then meet someone, and go on it. Beforehand, the women had 'high fertility' attractions, but after, their tastes change. Even if it's not dooming the masses, it could be a major contributing factor to the rising divorce rate and general relationship woes.

It sounds very logical, but there are gaping holes that the journalists and even the study authors completely ignore.

Firstly, it's important to point out that this is a non-systemic review. A non-systemic review is one that doesn't describe the methods used to choose the papers which are included in it. The authors say that 75% of the studies performed in the past decade support their conclusions. But how did they choose the 72 studies included in their review? How exhaustive was their search? Without explaining these methods, it's entirely possible that the review is biased, focusing on research which supports the writers' preformed conclusion.

Small, non-random samples aren't fit
mathematically to be expanded to populations

But even assuming that the choices were comprehensive when it comes to the literature, there are flaws in those, too. Most of these studies have incredibly low, non-random sample sizes (i.e. <100 college students who want extra credit in their psych class). When talking about large-scale changes which affect populations, such small sizes that aren't randomly selected are poor choices. After all, would you say that the overall political views of the country are the same as the population of one town in Texas? The larger the extrapolation of the data, the larger and more random the sampled set needs to be to be statistically relevant.

Furthermore, when comparing women who are on the pill to those who are not, the treatment group the women are in isn't double blind or random. The two groups are self selected - aka women who are on the pill already versus those that aren't. There is no control, no group that takes a placebo or, at least, goes from not taking the pill to taking it (with one exception - kind of. I'll explain in a minute). No clinical studies into side effects - like those done on various pharmaceuticals - would be tolerated without these kinds of controls.

It goes back to the underlying scientific question of the chicken or the egg. It's possible that taking birth control affects one's mate preferences. It's also possible that those with certain mate preferences are more interested in taking birth control, particularly those interested in the pill over other contraceptive methods like condoms. The studies examined in this review lack the power and structure to determine the difference. After all, studies have shown that there are differences in contraceptive use between political, religious, and age groups. Is it not entirely likely that underlying factor might stimulate a woman to be attracted to 'boyish' men and take birth control, like her religious preferences? The only study covered in the review which did, at least, compare women before and after taking the pill, did not randomly select women for each group. The women elected to take the pill or not, which means it does not rule out all of these issues.

Furthermore, among their logical conclusions, the authors suggest that taking the pill after starting a relationship may affect relationship satisfaction because a woman might change her mind about what she finds attractive. Call me a scientist, but can I have some data? This one ought to be easy to look at! Why speculate so broadly without any kind of data to back it up?

The authors do note that their conclusions are 'speculative,' but it seems the mainstream media has overlooked this portion of the paper. The majority of their conclusions are evolutionary speculations, not scientifically supported theories. And there is danger in trying to see everything from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution is a complex combination of selection, random change, and genetic shifts.

Don't panic, Jackie.
Your rugged good looks won't
keep women from wanting you

Not everything in the world has a concrete, easy to understand and logical reason for why it came out that way. There are jumps and changes that are under little to no selection at all, and the evolutionary 'reasons' for even those traits that are under natural or sexual selection can be hard to decipher.

While this paper is good discussion fodder, it's conclusions and theories should be taken with a very large grain of salt. The science in it is very interesting, however, it's hardly conclusive, and as journalists and reporters of science we need to be more careful in how we talk about science to the public. I'm fairly certain that rugged, manly men still can make women swoon, and that we're not all genetically doomed from birth control (I'm even more positive of this while looking for images for this post, and flipping through pages and pages of Hugh Jackman).

Now, the potential genetic doom of the fish and aquatic creatures who are getting dosed with high levels of these hormones from untreated sewage runoff, that's a different story... for a different day.

Alexandra Alvergne, & Virpi Lummaa (2009). Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? Trends in Ecology and Evolution : 10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.003

Manoa Falls

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:47:28 PDT

Facebook won't let me show off this stunning vertical panoramic I took at Manoa Falls (doesn't like the image size), so I'm putting it up here:

The falls are simply gorgeous. Just letting you all know. See the rest of the hike photos over on my facebook page.

Some important links

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:55:00 PDT

Ok y'all, it's been a busy week on the blogosphere, and there are some links you GOTTA hit up.

Carnival of the Blue #23 is up over at Cephalopodcast. It's a great mix of ocean blogging that you're sure to enjoy!

Similarly, Scientia Pro Publica #13 is up at Living the Scientist Life. Be sure to flip through the best science blogging of the past two weeks!

Also, though I'm a bit late, don't forget about the Carnival of Evolution #16, hosted this month by Pleitropy.

And last but not least, it's finally over - The Great Darwin Beard Challenge as ended, but they need to decide on a winner! Be sure to vote!

Check out the Nature Blog Network!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:58:15 PDT

I'm sure that many of you, while looking for fantastic, outdoorsy, nature blogging, have stumbled across Nature Blog Network. If you haven't, it's definitely worth checking out. Nature Blog Network is a list of over 950 blogs that you can peruse for free. They rank them according to a metric like pageviews, so you can see which ones everyone else likes, too. Blog topics range from birds, bugs, plants, herps, hiking, oceans, to ecosystems, and every other natural topic.

Every month, they also feature one of the nature blogs on their site, as a way for people to get to know the various nature bloggers. It's a neat feature that gives you some insight into bloggers you know and more about those you don't. You might want to check out the interview with this month's featured blogger - me. I'm honored to be picked!

Weekly Dose of Cute: Capybara

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:00:07 PDT

Last week, we saw the bravest rodent in the world. But these ones are the largest, and they are adorable!
Photo by NIGEL TREBLIN/AFP/Getty Images
Meet the Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). When I say big, I mean huge. Capybaras can get over 4 ft long and weigh in at 140 lbs! And they live in large, social groups led by a dominant male, similar to many ranging grazing mammals. They're semi-aquatic herbivorous mammals found throughout South America wherever there is water and forest. They can stay underwater for up to 5 minutes and are fantastic swimmers. They've even been known to sleep underwater, keeping their noses just above the water!

Despite being considered a "favorite food" of the big cats and reptiles that live in South America and being hunted by humans for their meat and fur, Capybara populations are stable. In some areas they are even farmed to protect wild populations. Random tid bit: to the Catholic church, they are designated as "fish" so they can be eaten during lent. Who knew? Even still, they are doing well, and their survival is due to their most rodent-like trait: they breed like rabbits! And they produce up to eight of these adorable pups in ever litter.

The Ig Nobels are out! And the winners are....

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:00:07 PDT

If you haven't heard, the 2009 Ig Nobels have been given. The Ig Nobels are one of my favorite yearly treats. They are given to research that "first make people laugh, and then make them think."

The prizes "celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative - and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology."

And the winners are...

Veterinary medicine: Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, UK, for showing that cows with names give more milk than cows that are nameless. Hear that, Bessie?
Reference:Bertenshaw, C., & Rowlinson, P. (2009). Exploring Stock Managers' Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 22 (1), 59-69 DOI: 10.2752/175303708X390473

Biology: Fumiaki Taguchi, Song Guofu and Zhang Guanglei of Kitasato University Graduate School of Medical Sciences in Sagamihara, Japan, for demonstrating that kitchen refuse can be reduced more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the feces of giant pandas.
Reference: Taguchi, F. (2001). Microbial treatment of kitchen refuse with enzyme-producing thermophilic bacteria from Giant Panda feces. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 92 (6) DOI: 10.1016/S1389-1723(01)80326-1

Medicine: Donald L Unger of Thousand Oaks, California, US, for investigating if knuckle-cracking causes arthritis of the fingers by diligently cracking the knuckles of his left hand but not his right hand every day for more than 60 years. Now that is dedication to a study! It doesn't, by the way.
Reference: Donald L. Unger (1998). Does knuckle cracking lead to arthritis of the fingers? Arthritis & Rheumatism Arthritis & Rheumatism, 41 (5), 949-950

Economics: The directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks have received the Ig Nobel in Economics for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa - and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy.

Physics: Katherine K Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, Daniel E Lieberman of Harvard University and Liza J. Shapiro of the University of Texas were given the Ig Nobel in Physics for analytically determining why pregnant women do not tip over... most of the time.
Reference:Whitcome, K., Shapiro, L., & Lieberman, D. (2007). Fetal load and the evolution of lumbar lordosis in bipedal hominins Nature, 450 (7172), 1075-1078 DOI: 10.1038/nature06342

Chemistry: Javier Morales and his associates from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma in Mexico have received the Ig Nobel in Chemistry for creating diamond film from tequila. One diamond film, two diamond films, three diamond films... FLOOR!
Reference: Javier Morales, Miguel Apátiga, & Victor M. Castaño (2008). Growth of Diamond Films from Tequila - arXiv: 0806.1485v1

Literature: The Ig Nobel in Literature goes to Ireland's police service for writing and presenting more than 50 traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country - Prawo Jazdy - whose name in Polish means "Driving Licence".

Public Health: Elena N Bodnar and her team from Chicago have won the Ig Nobel in Public Health for inventing a bra that can be quickly converted into a pair of gas masks - one for the wearer and one to be given to a needy bystander. Take that, bioterrorists!
Reference: U.S. patent # 7255627, granted August 14, 2007 for a “Garment Device Convertible to One or More Facemasks.”

Mathematics: Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, has received the Ig Nobel prize in Math for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers by having his bank print notes with denominations ranging from one cent to one hundred trillion dollars. Now you'll never need change!
Reference: Zimbabwe's Casino Economy — Extraordinary Measures for Extraordinary Challenges, Gideon Gono, ZPH Publishers, Harare, 2008, ISBN 978-079-743-679-4.

And, last but not least:

Peace: The Ig Nobel Peace Prize goes to Stephan Bolliger and his team from the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle. In case you were wondering, both can fracture your skull.
Reference: Bolliger, S., Ross, S., Oesterhelweg, L., Thali, M., & Kneubuehl, B. (2009). Are full or empty beer bottles sturdier and does their fracture-threshold suffice to break the human skull? Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16 (3), 138-142 DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.013

I can't wait to see who will walk away with the prizes next year. Perhaps these guys have a shot at the Physics prize:
Kent, R., Forman, J., & Bostrom, O. (2009). Is There Really a “Cushion Effect”?: A Biomechanical Investigation of Crash Injury Mechanisms in the Obese Obesity DOI: 10.1038/oby.2009.315

Ooo! A shiny award! FOR ME!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:39:43 PDT

We all love it when our work is appreciated, and as a grad student, that doesn't happen nearly enough. On the plus side, the wonderful bloggers at Mauka to Makai have noticed my little blog and have given me a Kreativ Blogging Award!

They put me in the ranks of Deep Sea News, Malaria, Bedbugs Sea Lice and Sunsets, and Living the Scientific Life - which, while I hardly deserve, certainly boosts my ego for the day. So, THANKS!

Be sure to check out all of the blogs they awarded!

When Good Genes Go Bad

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:39:30 PDT

The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center is holding a contest - $750 towards attending SciOnline 2010 for two bloggers who write exceptional evolutionary blog posts in 2009. Living in Hawaii, it's tough to afford the round trip to North Carolina all by me onesies, so here's my attempt at getting the funds!

When Good Genes Go Bad

We tend to think of evolution as a directional process, whether its from simplicity to complexity or 'less fit' to 'more fit.' Even the classic images of evolution, like the evolution of man, reveal our inherent bias. But that is not always the case; species all over exhibit a variety of traits which damage their reproductive fitness despite the best-laid plans of genes and evolution.

You see, times are always changing, and what might be good for you one day could be disastrous the next (just imagine if the flock of seagulls haircut was genetic, and you can see what I mean). The big problem is that even if a trait was once adaptive or even just neutral, it can later become maladaptive as pressures shift. And that, unfortunately, is what has happened to the Hawaii Akepa.

Akepa (Loxops coccineus) are one of native species of Hawaiian honeycreeper that lives in the upper elevations of Hawaii's forests. They're stunning birds, with the males turning bright red when they reach adulthood and females remaining a pretty green. For centuries, they've used their specialized, crossed bills to eat caterpillars and other bugs and drink nectar from the native Koa and Ohi'a trees.

Like other native species, they took a hit when people arrived. Habitats were leveled for farming, invasive plants overtook native trees creating less food and habitat, and invasive birds began to take what little was left. However, they dodged a bullet that is devastating some of their closest kin by living too high up for the introduced mosquitoes and avian malaria to attack their blood. Sure, the loss of their habitat due to farming was tough, but we've started fixing that, so they're primed to re-expand back into their native range.

That is, they would be primed to, if they could start producing enough young to expand back into the forests we're restoring. Despite the relatively long breeding season they have in which to produce young, which lasts from early spring until winter, they just don't seem to have the reproductive rate they need to bounce back. But it isn't that they don't have enough young akepa. The females are pumping out baby birds like it's their job when they can, but the breeding rate is still dangerously low. What's going wrong?

Well, it all starts with these invasive Japanese White-Eyes I've mentioned before. They're up in the akepa's forests, eating their food, and putting stress on breeding mothers. The competition doesn't help, and its lowering the overall fitness of the breeding birds, hampering their survival rates. But the white-eyes aren't entirely to blame: they breed later in the year, so the competition is only really bad during the later half of the breeding season, which still leaves an entire early breeding season to make babies - and the akepa do. But the population numbers just aren't growing. Something else is going wrong.

Blame evolution. You see, the akepa have evolved a trait which is dooming their population.

Once upon a time, before the white-eyes moved in, the akepa populations were booming. There were a lot of males fighting for a good number of females, and it worked out that the bigger, healthier males managed to get laid far more often than smaller ones. It also worked out that those mothers who nested earlier got more food and had bigger, healthier babies. Somehow, a genetic switch was turned on, and the akepa started biasing their young's sex, in a process called Sex Allocation.

It's a phenomenon you've probably heard about in context with deer. Female deer, when healthy and well fed, are more likely to have males. The theory goes that because in deer society only the best males reproduce, to produce a weak male is a waste of reproductive effort. Girls, on the other hand, are always welcome in a top male's harem, so small, weaker girls still can still pass on genes.

Something similar occurs in akepa. The females who produced males earlier in the breeding season were rewarded with strong, dominant boys that had lots of kids because, in general, males are able to have more offspring than females (the whole sperm versus egg thing). Somehow, through the magic of natural selection and genetics, it became the rule. Breed early, have a boy, breed later, have a girl.

It's a battle over resources, and the white-eyes are winning. Photos c/o AAAS

Then the white-eyes made the Hawaiian forests their home. They breed later in the year, and consequently, compete far more voraciously for food and nesting sites with the akepa during the later half of the breeding season. During that time, akepa that breed have trouble getting a good nest site and enough food to feed their young, meaning that few of the later-breeding akepa chicks survive. Since competition is lower in the early season, the chicks born then do just fine. The problem is, they're almost all males.

From 1987, when white-eyes were few and far between, to 2005, after a major explosion in the white-eye populations, the sex ratio of male to female akepa shifted from close to 50-50 males-females (57% female) to only 13% female. In the early years, from 1987-1999, 32 female chicks and 24 male chicks survived to adulthood. From 2000-2006, 27 male chicks made it, but only four female chicks did. FOUR females.

What was once an adaptive strategy - producing mostly males earlier in the breeding season - has become dangerously maladaptive. And, unfortunately, there's no evidence to suggest that evolution is coming to their rescue and dismantling the seasonal variation in sex allocation. The now-endangered species appears to have little hope unless serious management practices dramatically increase the survival rates of akepa chicks in the later months of their breeding season. In the akepa, good genes have gone bad, and the species is likely to go extinct from it.

Leonard A. Freed, Rebecca L. Cann, & Karl Diller (2009). Sexual dimorphism and the evolution of seasonal variation in sex allocation in the Hawaii akepa Evolutionary Ecology Research, 11, 731-757

Pan-Fried Conservation: How to eat our way to healthy reefs

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:49:53 PDT

Most of the time, marine conservation entails convincing people not to eat the over-exploited seafoods they love. We tell people to stop eating the fried grouper sandwiches, spicy tuna rolls and shark-fin soup that they crave. Well, we don't have to avoid seafood altogether to help marine life - in fact, we should be eating more of it - so long as we eat the right species.

There is a fish you can crave guilt-free and eat to your heart's content because eating more of it will actually help Caribbean reefs. No, I'm not kidding. What is the most ecologically responsible fish choice you can make?

Read the rest to find out!

Your guilt-free fish dish:

Looks tasty, doesn't he?
You probably have heard of lionfish before. They're very popular in aquariums because of their ornate fins which warn potential predators of their painful venom. Lionfish are also known as Turkey Fish, Dragon Fish, Scorpion Fish or Fire Fish. The term "lionfish" actually applies to any of the species in the genera Pterois, Parapterois, Brachypterois, Ebosia or Dendrochirus, which are in the subfamily Pteroinae of the family Scorpaenidae.

Like the fierce cats they're named for, lionfish are voracious predators able to eat anything up to two-thirds their size. But now, their endless appetites threaten the natural ecosystems that attract thousands of tourists every year. This invasive predator has spread like a plague of locusts in the Caribbean and along the south eastern US coast, eating everything in their path since their introduction sometime in the 1990s, most likely from aquarium releases.

"They're like cockroaches," explains Bobbie Lindsay, a member of the Palm Beach Shore Protection Board who is one of the most vocal non-scientist voices about the invasion. "Bahamians know of reefs where there are 70 to 100 on a single rock," she explains. "That's beyond infestation!"

While it might seem exciting to divers to see this new, intriguing fish in their local waters, there's considerable downside to their sudden arrival. Research has found that lionfish feeding activities can decrease native fish recruitment by an average of 79% in the Caribbean, a number which might even be on the low end of the damage they do.

"They're eating everything," said Lisa A. Mitchell, executive director of Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), a nonprofit group that is helping both spread the word and get divers involved in dealing with this devastating invasion. "They could wipe out entire reefs."

Mark Hixon, a biologist from Oregon State University, is one of the scientists tackling the invasion problem. For the past few years he and his graduate students have been watching the infestation grow, studying the ecological impacts of the lionfish.

"Native fish just don't know what hit them," explains Mark Hixon. "The small fish [in the Caribbean and Atlantic] don't do anything. They take no evasive action."

Lionfish have been sighted as far south as Venezuela and as far north as Rhode Island, and they've even been sighted this year in the marine sanctuary off the Florida Keys, the last remaining safe place for many of the Caribbean's most valuable and threatened species.

This lionfish invasion is an ecological distaster. We need a plan of action to manage this invasive species, a plan which will stop the spread of these quick-breeding sea-vermin and help protect the native populations from the advancing threat.

We need to eat them.

With how quickly lionfish breed, substantial predatory pressure is the only thing that will keep them from continuing to devastate Atlantic reefs. Unfortunately, we've completely decimated the top predator populations in that area, and those few that remain are showing no interest in stepping up to the plate. So, it's our turn to play the role we're all too good at. We have to be the top predator, and overfish this invasive predator into local extinction. Creating a strong fishery is the best management plan we have available, and is likely the last hope for many of the threatened Caribbean species.

But the real question is: how do they taste?

"Just like chicken," claimed Mark Hixon, when I asked him. "I don't know about chicken," laughed Bobbie Lindsay when I told her what he said, "but they're very good. Like rockfish, if you've ever had that."

It turns out lionfish are quite a delicacy (and have been one in Asia for a long time). You just have to get past the venomous spines, which isn't nearly as hard to do as you would think. Lionfish are venomous, not poisonous like blowfish, which means their toxins only affect you when injected into your skin. The toxic compounds, which are mostly proteins, are extremely sensitive to heat, so even if you did end up getting a little venom on your filet (which shouldn't happen anyhow because the venom is only in those long spines that aren't exactly appetizing), it would completely denature when cooked, rendering it harmless. In fact, heat is the recommended treatment for a lionfish sting because the venom is so sensitive to temperature that simply sticking your hand it hot water can destroy it.

Dive organizations are already getting in on the fishing action. This past summer, Lindsay helped organize the first annual "Lionfish Smash." The event's goal was to educate the public and spearfishermen about the invasion while catching as many lionfish as they could to serve up to locals. In North Carolina, Discovery Diving regularly goes out on lionfish round-ups (with help from enthusiastic divers like the one on the right). The caught fish are used both for ongoing research by scientists and organizations like NOAA and as tasty treats for the hard-working divers. They've even shipped off boxes of frozen fish to interested restaurant owners and chefs hoping to help boost the demand for lionfish meat.

Lionfish can be seared, fried, blackened, buttered, baked, stuffed, and even eaten raw, but until now the demand for their tasty flesh has been almost non-existent - that needs to change.

We need a call to arms - or, as one might say, to whet the appetites - of divers, tourists and conservationists who love the Caribbean, and get the word out about this tasty way that we can save our reefs.

If you live on the southern Atlantic coast or in the Caribbean and love to dive, volunteer to help out with REEF surveys or with dive groups like Discovery Divers that are going out and catching fish. NOAA and the other researchers are always looking for helping hands! Even if you don't live on the southeastern coast, tell others about the invasion and point them towards the organizations fighting it, like REEF and NOAA. Supporting lionfish research and helping spread information are the best things we can do (other than eat them) to help with the infestation.

No matter where you are in the US, you can talk to your local restaurants and tell them you want lionfish on the menu. It'll be worth their efforts - just ask Paolo di Chiara, owner and chef of Dolce Vita's World Cuisine in Eleuthera, Bahamas. He noticed that lionfish looked very similar to Scarfano, a kind of scorpion fish that is a delicacy in Italy. Now, his life partner Manon Tousignant dives every to catch the fresh fish that Chiara serves up in a variety of dishes, including a soup-like dish called Zupra di Pesce. "They're the most delicious fish in the Atlantic," says Chiara. Chefs and owners can contact Debby at Discovery Diving (dive@discoverydiving.com) to obtain fish, or ask local dive organizations about them.

Just think - if we all start asking for lionfish, and restaurants start serving them, we can eat seafood to our heart's content and be improving the ocean instead of overfishing it. While some other seafood options aren't terrible (if you want to know which ones, check out your local Seafood Guides from the Monterrey Bay Aquarium), none of them are as ecologically responsible as lionfish! Who'd have thought that you can promote conservation and eat fish, too?

Say 'Hello' to my creepy segmented friend.

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:51:19 PDT

So, Barry, his brother Brian, and I decided to spend our Saturday tooling around the Wai'anae coast. For those of you who aren't familiar with Hawai'i, the Wai'anae coast extends west of Pearl Harbor up to Kaena point, shown in the map on the right in orange. It's drier than most of the island, which leads to less polluted runoff, making the water there spectacular.

So we had a nice day. We played at the beach. We laid out in the sun. And, we decided to play some football on a nice stretch of green near one of the Ko Olina lagoons. Here's some action footage that I thought was just amazing:

While caught up in our game, however, I felt what seemed like a gentle tickling across my foot - maybe a blown leaf or something. You can imagine my horror when I look down to see this crawling on my toes:

In general, Hawai'i is truly wonderful because, unlike most tropical destinations, we have a shocking low number of things with venom or teeth that can give you any kind of painful wounds... at least on land. There are a couple spiders, supposedly some scorpions, though rarely does anyone seem to see them, and no snakes or large predators. Of course, we do have centipedes.

Centipedes are some of the lesser talked about arthropods, though instantly recognizable by their long, segmented bodies which carry a large number of legs. Yes, they can have up to 177 legs, so the name fits. But it's not the legs that freak me out- it's their nice, large pincers. See for yourself (look just below the smiling face):

Centipedes are venomous and their bites, though not fatal, can be nasty. They can leave welts the size of a baseball and really, really, REALLY hurt. Lucky for me, when I jumped and kicked this lovely one off of me, it didn't take the time to turn around and bite me for it. It did, however, book it out of there. You can see how fast they can be in this short video I caught of it running, though it wasn't going full speed at this point:

Needless to say, I was ready to quit playing football at that point... just the thought of another one lying around kinda creeped me out.

Weekly Dose of Cute: The Bravest Rodent EVER

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:01:25 PDT

I stumbled across this little story at Snuzzy.Com and simply had to share it. How's this for a brave little rodent?

Photos taken by Casey Gutteridge

As the story goes, what was initially identified as a mouse (though closer inspection identifies as a young rat) decided that it wanted some of what Sheena, a 12 year old African leopard at the Santago Rare Leopard Project in Hertfordshire, was about to eat for lunch. The leopard was quite stunned by the creature's boldness, and at first she was taken back and even acted a little frightened according to photographer Casey Gutteridge. She then stared for a few moments at the small creature stealing her tasty raw meat, finally choosing to walk over and give it a sniff. Either annoyed or amused, the deadly feline proceeded to nudge the felon, trying to convince it to leave her meal alone, however the courageous rodent refused to move until it was finished eating its stolen meal. Talk about balls!

The Santago Rare Leopard Project has been working for 20 years to breed the world's most endangered leopards like the clouded and snow leopards. Started by ex-dog breeder Peter James and his wide Jackie, the project houses around 15 rare animals, and is working hard to preserve these majestic species.

Get into the motion of the OCEAN!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:24:40 PDT

I believe that most of my readers are very environmentally-conscious people. After all, how could you stand reading the ravings of a clearly tree-and-animal-hugging girl like me unless you had a soft spot for things that are green. So you all might like to know about a brand new, volunteer-based conservation group called OCEAN: the Online Community Environmental Action Network.

Here's what OCEAN's creator, David Shiffman, had to say:

I am proud to live in a time when more people care about protecting the environment than ever before. However, even with all of the amazing people working in the conservation movement, one of the biggest parts of my job is still public education. Most people have never heard that sharks are important, that sharks are in trouble, and that they can help. Many people have still not heard that the oceans are in trouble, and a few genuinely have not heard that the environment as a whole is threatened.

What solutions we can implement are limited by how many people know about the problem. The best science isn’t going to help if we can’t convince the general public of the need to do something. Every single one of us who cares about protecting the environment needs to help spread the word. In many cases, excellent resources for spreading the word are already in place- they are just underutilized.

It is with this important goal in mind that I am announcing the formation of a new volunteer-based conservation group : the Online Community Environmental Action Network (OCEAN).

The plan is that OCEAN members will utilize social networking sites like blogs, twitter, and facebook to share information. As a member (joining is FREE), you get updates from all over the world that you might find interesting as a environmentally-interested individual, and can submit your own content to be shared.

The more we communicate, the better the chance we have to make a real difference in the conservation movement and in our communities. To join OCEAN, just e-mai WhySharksMatter AT Gmail DOT com with the subject “OCEAN Application” and let him know that you want to be a member. Then keep an eye out for OCEAN-worthy content as you stroll the interwebs or write your own!

Get out there and join the motion of the OCEAN!

Happy Birthday To Observations of a Nerd!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:00:03 PDT

Wow, I can't believe it - it's my first blogiversary! One year ago today, I posted my very first blog about why it's Obeservations of a "Nerd". I can't believe a whole year has gone by... it seems like just yesterday!

The blog growing up so fast. In just one year, I've already had my first political post, my first published post, and my first troll. The moments just seem to be flying by!

Well, since it's my blogiversary, I'm going to go do what I want to... have some drinks and celebrate! You should all join me in a toast with your favorite alcoholic beverage. Cheers to another wonderful year of science and fun!

White-Eyes Killing Off Native Birds In Hawaii

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:44:16 PDT

Introduced and invasive species are a hot topic in ecology. Even when brought in for good reason, introduced species can have unforeseen negative impacts on the environment and the species around them. Take Cane Toads, for example. They were introduced to Australia to control a particular bug, but ended up eating everything they could fit in their mouths, especially native, endangered species. Or look at the mongoose, brought to Hawaii to control rat populations. While it does enjoy the invasive rodents, it also feeds on the eggs of native birds, decimating their populations. Now, there's another species to add to the list of dangerous invasives: The Japanese White-Eye.

Japanese white-eyes (Zosterops japonicus) are really, really cute little birds (see me with one on the R). At just under 5 inches with bright green feathers and a yellow throat, the white-eye is a colorful and attractive bird. It's name comes from the distinctive white ring around its eyes. You'll find them all over the Hawaiian Islands where they were introduced intentionally in the 1929 to control bug populations. Populations have grown exponentially since, devouring bugs and nectar wherever the white-eyes can survive. Since they're cute, few people have thought twice about the invasion of this pretty little bird. The federal fish and wildlife commission here doesn't think they're a problem, and has even revoked the permits of scientists studying the bird's effects. But, a paper soon to be published in Current Biology begs to differ.

You see, there were already nectar-feeders in Hawaii before the white-eye was introduced. These native honeycreepers, like the Akepa and the Amakihi (on L), are a little larger and breed slower than the white-eye. But what's worse for them is that the white-eye didn't come alone. It brought with it parasites like avian malaria that the native species had never encountered before. The sickness and competition for food have taken their toll. Since the arrival of the white-eye, native Hawaiian bird populations have plummeted.

That's what Dr. Lenny Freed and Dr. Rebecca Cann have shown using 20 years of mark and recapture data in the federal preserve Hakalau on the big island of Hawaii. The birds were caught using mist nets and all kinds of data was taken for each bird - weight, morphological measurements, age, sex, parasitic infections, and more.

The data revealed that over the years, where the white-eyes flourished, the overall survival of juvenile native birds has dropped. Specifically, the native species are being out competed for food resources, leading to signals of malnourishment. The bill length and overall size of the native species has decreased dramatically.

"Just as there are permanent effects of stunted growth in human children, there are permanent effects in adult birds," explains Dr. Rebecca Cann from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. "Birds cannot use their shorter bills to feed efficiently for themselves or when feeding their young. Stunted birds have higher death rates than normal size birds. The Japanese white-eye is causing this problem for native Hawaiian birds by depleting the food available for growth, survival, and breeding."

Where the white-eyes have yet to invade or are in low numbers, the native honeycreepers are healthier, with larger bills and higher survival rates.

In the end, the data suggested that white-eyes are most likely responsible for the decline of 7 of 8 native forest birds in a major portion of the Hakalau refuge. While there are other threats like malaria and parasitoids, the fact that juvenile birds fared well wherever white-eyes are not is pretty damning. Another paper, out of the same lab in Hawaii, has shown that decreased food availability is altering sex ratios of the native Akepa (PDF), leading to too few females - another way in which the competition for food with the white-eye is dooming native Hawaiian bird species.

The white-eye is yet another example of how invasive species can severely damage the communities they take over. And despite how many biocontrol methods have failed horribly, nations and scientists continue to consider them viable options to control pest species. It's a tangled web we weave when we add or subtract species from an ecosystem - we shouldn't do it so lightly.

Leonard A. Freed, & Rebecca L. Cann (2009). Negative Effects of an Introduced Bird Species on Growth and Survival in a Native Bird Community Current Biology

Leonard A. Freed, Rebecca L. Cann, & Karl Diller (2009). Sexual dimorphism and the evolution of seasonal variation in sex allocation in the Hawaii akepa Evolutionary Ecology Research, 11, 731-757

Weekly Dose of Cute: Check out Paw-Talk!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:48:00 PDT

I did a guest post for Paw-Talk.Net, a great blog about animals of all kinds. It's about eight of the cutest endangered species - so go check it out for your weekly dose!

Next they'll tell me pigs can fly.

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:00:48 PDT

Last night I had this wonderful dream. It was a normal day in just about every way except I had this amazing ability. When I jumped, I was able to leap great distances and almost fly. No wings were involved - it was almost like I was able to levitate, and slowly drift between places. It was a very calm, serene feeling.

Perhaps that's how the mice in Dr. Liu's lab felt. Advances in Space Research has published online today an accepted manuscript where researchers levitated mice. And, according to their observations, the mice took to the free-floating existence quite readily.

The team first used a magnetic field to suspend large water droplets about 2 inches in diameter. Feeling good about themselves, they decided to try the trick with a mouse of similar size and weight. The little guy, weighing only 10 grams, was placed in a cage-like apparatus that allowed the researchers to film the experiment as well as give the mouse food and water while allowing droppings to fall through the bottom. Then, of course, they turned on the magnet. A static magnetic field with a strength of about 17T and large field gradient of 1.17 T/cm lifted the hapless mouse off the floor.

At first, the mouse wasn't so keen on floating. It tried desperately to grab a hold of anything, and kicked around, causing itself to spin faster and faster. To alleviate some of the stress, researchers sedated the mouse slightly the next time. But before long - about 3-4 hours - even non-sedated mice began acting normally, including eating and drinking in their suspended state.

The team saw no observable negative effects of such a strong magnetic field on the animals, though further research will be necessary to determine if prolonged exposure causes health issues. Previous studies have found that a lower level of magnetic field (9.4T) didn't negatively impact mice, even when they were exposed to it for 10 weeks, but the stronger field used for levitation may have unforeseen, adverse effects after a long time.

While the researchers hope to use this technology for better understanding space flight and bone loss in astronauts, I think there are many applications. Carnival rides, for example. Oh come on - like you've never wanted to levitate!

Liu, Y., Zhu, D., Strayer, D., & Israelsson, U. (2009). Magnetic levitation of large water droplets and mice Advances in Space Research DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.08.033

Google #FAIL

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:36:09 PDT

Sometimes, when I get bored, I play around with sites like Google. Barry was sitting there talking about how much he missed seeing the Steelers play, and before long, we were Googling how to get from Hawaii to Pittsburgh, including a quick and dirty Google Maps. So what's the best way to get from Honolulu to Pittsburgh according to Google Maps?

That doesn't look so bad. But, let's take a closer look at step 14:

That's right - Google recommends we kayak across the Pacific Ocean - all 2,756 miles from the north shore of Oahu to some park in Seattle. It'll only take us just over 15 days including the driving time - not bad, eh?

Sometimes, I wish I was British.

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:25:00 PDT

Sure, there's the cute accent. There's the funny hats. There's the feeling of intellectual superiority when it comes to humor. There's even the fact that I could ignore painful dental visits without becoming socially ostracized. But mostly, I occasionally want to be British because of things like this:

Last Chance to See, BBC2, from Sunday 6 September, 8pm
Mark has joined forces with Stephen Fry to present a new series about threatened species, as inspired by the best-selling book which Mark wrote some 20 years ago with Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See.
The six-part series - which is entertaining despite being about animals on the brink - will include some of the old stars from the book. And it will introduce us to many new ones that have inevitably joined the ever-expanding cast of endangered species.
Updating the animals’ stories and explaining their ecological predicaments, Mark and Stephen have faced a catalogue of adventures.
Filming began in the Amazon, continued through Kenya, Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, New Zealand, Baja California in Mexico, Malaysia and Indonesia (see Mark's blogs).
6 SEPTEMBER - Last Chance to See: Amazonian Manatee
13 SEPTEMBER - Last Chance to See: Northern White Rhino
20 SEPTEMBER- Last Chance to See: Aye Aye
27 SEPTEMBER- Last Chance to See: Komodo Dragon
11 OCTOBER - Last Chance to See: Kakapo
18 OCTOBER -Last Chance to See: Blue Whale

My favorite book of all time is now a TV series, and I live in the wrong country to see it.

PS if you live in Britain, have a great TV to DVD recorder (or an in with BBC) and want woo me for whatever reason, I just might consider a gift of this series in its entirety similar to manner in which a wild female chimp regards meat. Just some food for thought.

Climate Change - is it for the birds?

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:19:13 PDT

As every year we humans pump out more and more carbon dioxide, our climate is changing. While select few in their fields disagree that any alterations are human-induced, the majority of the scientific community accepts the data which shows global warming and other changes - ocean acidification, for example - are occurring, and it's our fault. Even still, we hotly debate exactly what needs to be done, and meanwhile, the ecosystems are shifting.

While we argue who should cut what emissions or who's to blame, species are going extinct, and others are moving. Exactly how much is changing is surprising. Just ask Diana Stralberg - her team just published a fascinating paper in PLoS ONE about bird communities in California. They found that 60 years from now, over half of California could be occupied by novel assemblages of bird species. This means species will be competing with species they have never seen for food, nesting space, and survival.

The research team wanted to know how global warming and predicted temperature changes might affect the bird communities in California. Birds are often limited to specific temperature ranges. Stralberg and her colleagues hypothesized that as the overall climate changes, so, too, will the distribution patterns of bird species. So, they used a multivariate modeling approach to quantify the potential change in breeding bird communities based on current and future distribution models for 60 focal Californian species.

What they found was nothing short of staggering. Depending on the variables used - community scales, algorithms, and climate models - the areas that would be host to completely mixed-up species groupings ranged from 10% to 57%. They found that many of these new assemblages - up to 50% - would be completely unlike any current bird communities. The image above shows how different California's bird communities will be according to the different models. The redder the color, the fewer current bird communities exist that are similar, or analogs, to the community predicted to occur there in 60 years. In other words, the redder an area is, the less comparable it will be to anything we've ever seen. This means that we have, at best, a weak notion of what would happen to the different species involved and how they would interact with their environment. This could lead to dramatic community reshuffling and unpredictable patterns of species interactions.

What is out of scope of the model is how these new interactions might affect the populations and distributions of species. For example, the model might place two species with similar food niches in the same area, but it doesn't reveal how that competition might affect the population density of either species. One might out-compete the other causing local extinction, or both might survive in high numbers - we don't know, especially for areas with no current analogs to compare to. With these new interactions will inevitably come new challenges for conservation and species management, particularly for endangered species.

Models like this one show just how much climate change is impacting our planet. Not in 100 or 1000 years - now, in our lifetimes. It's likely that my generation and up and coming scientists like myself will see an unprecedented dramatic shift in the ecology of the world we live in, and it will be our responsibility to deal with whatever is left.

And yet, old men in starched suits who likely won't last to see the impacts of their actions are the ones who are debating and deciding should be done. Sometimes is just makes me angry to think about how unbelievably unjust and unfair it all seems, but most of the time, it just makes me more determined to do what I do. I'd like to think that, someday, I might be one of the old, grouchy people deciding what my outdated generation will leave as a legacy to the ones that follow, and if so, I'd like to believe that my decisions will be better.

Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C., Snyder, M., Alexander, J., Wiens, J., & Root, T. (2009). Re-Shuffling of Species with Climate Disruption: A No-Analog Future for California Birds? PLoS ONE, 4 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006825

BioData's Scientist of the Month!

lunarrosetta@gmail.com (Christie Lynn) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:55:00 PDT

Every month, the blog at BioData.com features one scientist. They delve into the scientist's background, motivations for doing what they do, and general awesomeness. And guess who is the scientist of the month for August 2009?

... Yeah, that's right. You know you're jealous.

So if you want to know any more about me than you already do, feel free to check it out!