What was the best year for ecology?

The best year for movies was 1999.* The best year for music was 1967.** But what was the best year for ecology?

Some opening bids:

  • 1859, the publication year of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Much of ecology can’t be understood unless you know about evolution. And the biogeography in the Origin is pretty much on the money.
  • 1972 saw the publication of MacArthur’s Geographical Ecology, synthesizing much of his massively influential work. 1972 also was the year Bob May published his famous result on stability and complexity in model ecosystems.
  • 1976. May’s Nature paper on chaos in the discrete time logistic equation. Charnov’s marginal value theorem of optimal foraging. Stearn’s review of life history theory, arguably the most influential review paper in ecological history.
  • 1977. Holt 1977 (apparent competition). Grubb 1977 (regeneration niche). Grime 1977 (CSR hypothesis). Brown & Kodric-Brown 1977 (rescue effect). Connell & Slayter 1977 (alternative modes of succession).

This should be a fun comment thread!

*Or 1939. Or 1977. Or 1984. Or 1994.

**Seriously, it was 1967.***

***No, YOU’RE wrong. It was 1967, dammit!****

****[puts fingers in ears, sings “Are You Experienced?” at the top of his lungs]

On what important ecological research topic do non-experts have the most outdated view?

Word of a scientific advance spreads out from its source like ripples from a pebble thrown into a pond. It starts at the source of the advance, spreads out to specialists in the topic, then perhaps to interested outsiders in the broader field, and perhaps eventually (if it’s a really important or newsworthy advance) to scientists in other fields and to at least some non-scientists. Along the way, technical details about the advance typically get lost.

It takes time for the ripples of knowledge to spread out, and they don’t always spread as far, or with as high fidelity, as one might think or wish. Nobody can keep track of more than a tiny fraction of the latest research–or even the not-so-latest research! Which means that sometimes, people who aren’t experts on topic X will have a very outdated view of current consensus thinking among experts on topic X. For example, Nate Silver suggests that many member of the general public have an outdated view regarding coronavirus immunity:

Hence my question: what are the important ecological research topics on which non-experts have outdated views?

I find this an interesting question to mull over. The answer would shed a bit of light on how fast and how far the ripples of scientific advances spread across the pond of science.

By “important” topics I mean topics on which non-experts have a view. Topics that create no ripples, because no one except specialists knows anything about them, aren’t of interest here.

“Outdated” means “a view that reflects the previous thinking among expert researchers on the topic, not their current thinking”. It includes cases in which the previous consensus has been replaced by a new expert consensus, and cases in which the previous expert consensus has been replaced by controversy or confusion (“Everybody thinks we experts figured this out years ago, but it turns out we didn’t.”) “Outdated” also includes cases in which the non-expert view reflects a previous lack of expert consensus that has now given way to consensus (“Everybody thinks we experts still don’t know much about this topic, but actually we figured it out.”)

“Consensus” is important here. I’m not asking about cases in which the view of non-experts has failed to track the changed thinking of one idiosyncratic expert.

Answers to this question may well differ depending on the non-experts considered. There may for instance be ecological topics on which word of a new expert consensus has spread among other ecologists, but not to the general public.

This is the point at which I’d ordinarily suggest some answers to my own question. But I can’t think of any! Looking back over our old poll on the most controversial ideas in ecology doesn’t turn up any great candidates. I dunno, maybe lots of people think that local species richness is declining pretty much everywhere, when the expert consensus increasingly seems to be that it’s not?

Looking forward to your comments, as always.

Embracing the Paradox: Lessons Learned from Teaching Virtual Field Courses

Intro from Meghan: This is a guest post from Alicia Farmer and Stephanie Shaulskiy from the University of Michigan’s Biological Station.

This is Stephanie and Alicia. We work as staff* for the University of Michigan Biological Station (UMBS), a teaching and research field station located near Pellston, Michigan in the state’s northern lower peninsula. 

When coronavirus forced our home institution’s instruction online in March, UMBS was less than two months away from welcoming several hundred researchers, instructors, students and staff to our Northern Michigan site for our usual field season. In a normal year, we offer 20 – 25 field courses, divided among a 4-week spring session, an 8-week summer session, and a 2-week late summer session. Once the university approved us to offer classes on-line, we gave our instructors the option of adapting their northern-Michigan, place-based classes to a fully remote and virtual environment, or canceling their class for this year. To our surprise and gratitude, fifteen instructors signed on. 

Because we had already been assessing outcomes and impacts of the UMBS field experience, we were set to pivot to an assessment of this year’s online instruction. What follows is a distillation of actions and lessons learned from our focus groups and individual interviews with faculty and students participating in our 2020 remote field courses.**

9 SUCCESSFUL SYLLABUS/COURSE DESIGN ACTIONS for REMOTE INSTRUCTION

as piloted by UMBS Spring/Summer 2020 Faculty

C = Builds Community
E = Heightens student Engagement with the content
F = Especially important to courses with a Field component
P = Builds sense of Place
S = Important consideration for course Structure or Syllabus 

1. Incorporate Physical Materials (C, E, F, P, S)

Students in one course wrote letters to each other. One faculty member sent the students items for an assignment; package “unboxing” happened in a Zoom session. Several lab classes (including Chemistry, Ecology, and Fishes) had UMBS staff assemble and mail lab kits to students.*** These enabled students to sample and study their local environments, including their residences. 

Materials sent to students in Biology of Fishes class

[Image caption: Materials sent to students in Biology of Fishes class. Image description: Items spread out on a table surface include a bucket, a minnow trap, a bundle of flags, flagging tape, a tape measure, rope, latex gloves, bait, plastic bags.]

2. Take advantage of and take into account students’ diverse locations (E, F, P, S)

For some classes, students sampled water and soil in their own kitchens, yards or neighborhoods. In other classes, students took photos or made sketches wherever they were living and added these to a common Box folder or Slack channel to share with each other. The instructor for the Biology of Fishes, where students were spread across the country, observed that everyone in the class enjoyed examining the regional data on fish communities that they could build by combining everyone’s individual data. Another faculty member observed that for many students, these excuses to be outdoors during the pandemic brought a “source of restoration and a calming during this moment.” 

That said, it helped to have flexibility built into assignments to accommodate students’ varying locations and access to the out-of-doors. In a pollinator lab, students needed to adjust the methods around what flower(s) were available where they were. In Plant Biology, the online identification resources were richer for some student locations than others. Assignments also needed to accommodate students who were unable to safely go outside. In a biology project, a home-bound student focused on doing a statistical analysis of the group’s data instead of collecting it. An art class student substituted kitchen produce for living plants to illustrate features like branching and spirals. 

Some faculty made (or asked staff to make) videos of specific habitats that students wouldn’t get to visit in person. Others used guest speakers to bring the wider world to the class environment.

 

[Image caption: A student heads out into the field for her Fishes Class. Photo credit: Sophia Margaritis. Image description: A young person with a mask covering her mouth and nose and a handful of orange flags stands in front of a lake. Everyone included in a picture gave permission for their image to be in this post.] 

3. Create Collaborative Teaching Teams

Spring faculty invited summer faculty to meet with them weekly. This allowed spring faculty to share what was working or not as summer faculty were planning their courses. It also gave spring faculty a venue for sharing their successes, frustrations and questions. 

4. Set Clear Expectations for Online Communication (C, E)

Faculty recommended

  • surveying students in advance to see how many can attend synchronous sessions;
  • surveying students in advance about wifi/connectivity;
  • being explicit about what expectations are for course participation: is it okay to turn off cameras? to miss a discussion if you are feeling “Zoomed out?”;
  • having a discussion with students in the beginning of the course to create ground rules (e.g. is Zoom Chat for Q&A only or for sidebar conversations? Who decides who speaks next?).

5. Keep Student Autonomy in Mind / Use Specific and Clear definitions of concepts (F, S) 

In a traditional field course, the instructor or GSI typically guides students through field work. In the virtual setting, students have more control over when and how they conduct their field work. Faculty perceived that students were empowered by this freedom; however, if students didn’t understand exactly what they were supposed to be doing, they might make mistakes that were hard to identify or correct after the field work was complete. For example, plant and fish identification often rely on looking at a specific part of the organism, but students might mis-identify because they were looking at the wrong structures. 

Several instructors noted that students collected less data on their own (and generally the data collected by the class spanned a wider geographic area) than they would have at UMBS. So while students were still able to participate in field work and the research process, their data required different analyses and conclusions than in a typical lab/project. 

Additionally, spring term instructors noted that if given the choice, students worked in individual and small group (2-3 students) projects, instead of forming the larger groups that are the norm in field courses. Rather than helping the usual 5 or 6 groups with their research ideas, instructors were working with closer to 10-15 group/individual projects. This required the instructor to spend much more time giving help and direction to different projects. 

6. Schedule Time and use different platforms to Build Community (C, E, F, S)

Some activities that let students and instructors get to know each other better included

  • informal lunch gatherings where faculty ate their lunch with any students who wanted to come; sometimes faculty discussed things like their own career path or invited a colleague to talk about race or gender in the field;
  • scavenger hunt where students had to find something that told the class something about themselves, such a book they’re reading or game the’re playing or their favorite thing in nature;
  • on-line Adventure Race where teams of students worked together to solve clues that introduced them to Northern Michigan field sites;
  • faculty v. GSI head-to-head online challenge (e.g. pipetting) with students picking sides in advance and watching a live competition;
  • using side channels like discussion boards or chat channels as venues for ongoing and wider-ranging topics between course sessions.  

However, not all of these had high participation. It was the observation of some faculty that students didn’t want to be on Zoom any more than they had to. Platforms that allowed asynchronous interaction (chats, photo galleries) had more robust participation than extracurricular synchronous events.

Everyone used Canvas as the academic home for the course. But most faculty tried to approximate the more informal and immersive experience of field camp by engaging additional software:

  • Slack for fun field photos, chats.
  • Zoom for informal activities like a virtual campfire, a scavenger hunt, and brown bag  lunches where guest speakers shared their experiences as young scientists.
  • Box for group collaboration and portfolios

[Image caption: The General Ecology class meets for a “virtual campfire” to just hang out and talk. Photo credit: Hannah DeHetre. Image description: A laptop screen view shows a Zoom call in progress. The dominant image is of a campfire with a lake in the background. Participants’ screen views are minimized along the side. Everyone included in a picture gave permission for their image to be in this post.]

7. Check-in and Revise as necessary (C, E)

Ask students early and often how things are going. Venues our faculty used for this included Google forms, one-on-one meetings, GSI-led video discussions, and text group chats (on Slack channels and Canvas discussion boards). Be prompt and flexible in responding to students’ concerns. One instructor developed a daily to-do list after receiving feedback that students wanted more clarity on daily course requirements. Another reduced the amount of weekly Zoom meetings when students complained of burnout and loss of focus. They reworked the class to allow more work to be done asynchronously and saw the quality of synchronous meetings improve. Other classes added late-night office hours (staffed by GSIs) in response to students’ requests for help at times when they were working. 

8. Consider the Amount of Content (E, S)

Material takes longer to teach in a virtual setting compared to an in-person setting and students take more time to orient themselves when they are on their own without being directed by an instructor. In particular, any sort of experiment or guided learning takes longer and requires more time for explanation. Build in more time to explain assignments and go through expectations (and check in with students) than in a traditional semester. But don’t be surprised if students can have pretty thoughtful and thorough discussions. They are paying attention! One faculty described the coverage as “less material, more in depth.”

9. Be cautious when using analytical software programs (E, S)

Software was harder for students to use remotely. Many students struggled with R (a statistical program) and Excel, especially if this was their first time using them. In a remote setting, faculty can’t walk around a computer lab and peek over students’ shoulders. Especially in an asynchronous class, students can go a long way down an erroneous path without someone on hand to answer questions, catch errors, or ensure the software is doing what students think it is (e.g. one group ended up running a regression on text). If you’re using software, build in extra tutorials, open labs and office hours to address confusion. Faculty also found that students worked better with simpler and more straightforward data sets

BROADER CONSIDERATIONS

Additional topics came up repeatedly as we talked with faculty. We suspect you are hearing about these from other sources, so we won’t belabor them here. But they are worth being aware of. They get more to the heart of self-care, for students as well as instructors. Everything that’s true of students here is true of instructors whose non-academic lives are merging with work, too.

  • Especially if students are attending classes from home or another off-campus location, the rest of “life” (e.g. family, employment, home and neighborhood concerns) is more in the foreground than when they live on campus.  
  • Mental health issues may be more common and/or more severe while also being harder to detect in remote formats.
  • Students expect 24/7 responsiveness more than ever. Many instructors stressed the importance of clearly communicating and then sticking to the hours they were available. Some tried to replicate the camp feel by holding late night office hours (usually staffed by GSIs) or being broadly available during waking hours; others maintained office hours as they do in a regular semester. 
  • Even in a virtual environment, students could still learn a lot about the research process—how to interpret significant findings (or not finding significance) and when to use different kinds of statistical tests.

A final note from Alicia, Stephanie, and Meghan

While we did not specifically ask about how instructors considered accessibility and inclusivity in their courses, UMBS faculty discussed being flexible (e.g., giving parallel assignments depending on what environments were available near students), considering accessibility (e.g., working with students who did not have a good internet connection or working with students who could not go outside to do fieldwork because their country implemented a pandemic lockdown), and getting to know students (see “Schedule Time and use different platforms to Build Community” above). These are all practices that get recommended on lists for inclusive teaching. Accessibility and inclusivity are important topics that should be considered when designing all courses and the three of us wanted to make sure this was noted in this post. This resource has information on Access to Remote Instruction for Students and Faculty with Disabilities and this is a guide to inclusive teaching (aimed at UMich, but useful more broadly).

Footnotes:

*Stephanie is the Program Evaluator and Alicia is the Program Manager for UMBS’s Transforming Learning Program.

**The courses and instructors included in this analysis:

  • Art in Nature, Cathy Barry (UMich)
  • Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Amy Schrank (UMN)
  • General Chemistry Lab, Levi Mielke (UIndy)
  • General Ecology – 4 sections, Curt Blankespoor; Paul Moore (BGSU), Bob Pillsbury (UW-Oshkosh), Brain Scholtens (College of Charleston)
  • Great Lakes Arts Cultures and Environments (GLACE) Program (AMCULT/NATIVEAM 311, ANTHRCUL 298, ENGLISH 221, ENGLISH 320) – Ingrid Diran (UMich), Kendall Babl, Jennifer Metzger (UMich), Daegan Miller, Margaret Noodin (UW-Milwaukee)
  • Intro Biology Lab, Cindee Giffen (UMich)
  • Plant Biodiversity in the Digital Age, Charles Davis (Harvard) and Susan Fawcett

***If someone other than the instructor is assembling and distributing the kit, they should send a kit to the instructor, too, so they know what materials students have to work with.

Help me redesign the scientific paper

Note from Jeremy: this is a guest post from Kevin Lafferty, Western Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey 

******************

I hereby challenge you to help me redesign the scientific paper through a process called “Collaborative Independent Review”. But if you’ve already comfortable writing the traditional scientific paper, you’re probably not going to like it.

If you don’t like it, blame Andy Dobson. When Andy invited me to write a chapter for the new book Unsolved Problems in Ecology (Dobson, Holt and Tilman eds., PUP – check it out), he figured I would write about how everyone should think about parasites as much as I do. But I had been reading blog posts on Dynamic Ecology about how we do business as Ecologists (which means you can blame Jeremy, Brian and Meghan too). This got me more worried about ecologists than parasites. I became convinced we could get more return on investment in Ecology through better training programs, funding distribution, synthesis, publication models, and evaluation metrics. And so I wrote a chapter on A Science Business Model for Answering Important Questions. While writing, I kept remembering a 1979 paper called Ecology: A science and a religion, where one of my heroes, Paul Dayton, predicted that ecologists’ increasing focus on conservation would begin to undermine their scientific objectivity. This led me to add a section about reproducibility, which is what Jeremy asked me to blog about. Lots has been said about reproducibility in other disciplines, but I wondered if re-visioning how we write papers and how journals publish them was the key for ecology.

Continue reading

Passing the mutualism buck: why have theoretical textbooks largely ignored mutualism?

Note from Jeremy: this is a guest post from Christopher Moore. Thank you Chris for writing such a fun and meaty post!

****************

I went to graduate school because I was curiously captivated by a species interaction between plants and animals that disperse their seeds. This interaction is mutualistic; that is, both species directly interact and reciprocally increase each other’s fitness. The animals benefit from the nutrient reward from the plant (e.g., fruit pulp or nut endosperm) and the sessile plants benefit by having the animals do the work of dispersing their seeds across the landscape.

My first semester of graduate school I took one of the best courses of my life, “Advances in theoretical ecology,” whose readings were a mix of current papers and classic papers mostly from Foundations of Ecology by Brown and Real. Although it was an amazing course, I was really surprised that neither the course readings nor the text mentioned mutualism a single time. But what did I know? I was a first-semester graduate student and I thought this was surely an anomalous experience. I thought as I continued my studies I would surely learn more of the theoretical foundations of mutualism.

As graduate school continued, however, this experience was repeated over and over again: I’d go to the library and check out a book or I’d buy a new book with theoretical foci on species interactions, and mutualism would be missing. As examples, I bought Scheiner and Willig’s The Theory of Ecology (2011) the moment it came out (I love the framework of their ’05 paper that preceded it), and despite chapters on competition and enemy-victim interactions (predator-prey, herbivore-plant, host-parasite, etc.), there was no analogous chapter or even a mention of mutualism. I acquired Hastings and Gross’ remarkable 848-page tome Encyclopedia of Theoretical Ecology my final year in grad school. Of the 129 topics there are substantial entries on various species interactions, but not a single mention of mutualism in the entire book.

One day as a postdoc (circa 2016) I was preparing for a talk and decided I wanted a slide to show the lack of attention of mutualism in theoretical textbooks, so I decided to pull some of these books off my shelf to have a visual and some data. The books I owned would, of course, be biased towards including mutualism. But, if the data weren’t too biased, I thought, maybe I’d see a difference between how much attention mutualism receives compared with other species interactions. I haphazardly grabbed 16 and summed the number of pages with the word “mutualism” or synonyms. Here’re the books and data:

Continue reading

#macgyverteaching and #macgyverscience vs. Covid-19

Like many of you, I’m going to be teaching online-only this fall. I was fortunate to have some saved-up professional expense money from my uni, so I spent it on a lightboard to help me make more effective and engaging video mini-lectures.

Then I found out that I could’ve made my own for, like, $50. I bow to Emily Nix’s superior #macgyverteaching skills.

macgyver-approves

🙂

Emily Nix is of course one of only many teachers and researchers proving the old adage that necessity is the mother of invention. One of my grad students built her own incubators so that she could conduct her planned research this summer without access to the lab. They’re made of picnic coolers, reptile heating pads, temperature probes, and some other bits and pieces. They work great! I’m totally keeping them and using them after all this [waves arms, gestures at everything] is over.

In the comments, share your own stories and links about #macgyverscience and #macgyverteaching: building your own kit, and improvising in other ways, to get the job done in a Covid-19 world.

Iauk9jy

Supporting BIPOC researchers in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Note from Meghan: This guest post is a revised version of one that briefly appeared last month.

Over the past few months society has once again had to face the stark inequities that disproportionately affect Black, Indigenous, and other racial minorities. The senseless murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Chantel Moore highlighted police brutality against Black and Indigenous people, and ignited protests across the globe. The disproportionate impacts of COVID 19 on people of color are highlighting systemic racist structures in access to health care and other social networks.

These events have prompted renewed calls to examine systemic racism in all sectors of society, including academia and its many subdisciplines. The fields of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) are overwhelmingly white. Minorities in the biological sciences and EEB face many different types of discrimination. Personal stories shared on Twitter using hashtags such as #BlackinSTEM and #BlackinNature have highlighted the unique risks of conducting field work as a Black scientist. Within ecology we need to confront not just the current systematic bias, but also the legacies of colonialism.

Black, Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) have once again faced calls to educate the majority on how to address these problems. Doing so can require revisiting deep wells of pain and trauma. Much has been written about what has to change, on how to be a better ally, and on how to self-educate. This is important and necessary, yet much of what has been written centers whiteness, and focuses on the work the dominant majority should undertake.

What remains unsaid is how current BIPOC researchers can navigate their careers while biased and racist structures are not yet dismantled. An unspoken premise for the careers of BIPOC is that they will figure out on their own how to navigate systemic bias, while also performing unpaid or unacknowledged labor to help educate their scientific peers about these issues.

Continue reading