There’s
no hiding it anymore: the major academic ornithological societies, e.g. The
American Ornithological Union, The Wilson Ornithological Society, The Cooper
Ornithological Society, and smaller raptor groups, are facing declining
membership numbers and reduced revenues.
These groups are currently in the midst of talks about forming a
singular society so as to pool resources and reduce inefficiencies due to
overlapping functions.
Importantly, the decline in the groups also reflects a similar, though
less drastic, proportion of research biologists performing research on natural
populations. While species such as
the Darwin’s Finches continue to receive much press, the fields of evolutionary
biology and behavioral ecology have diversified into new groups.
This
diversification is welcome; we can test overarching biological principles in
more species and some of the new work is done on species that are amenable to
controlled studies in labs.
Therefore, the appropriate response of academic ornithologists is not to
resent the burgeoning work on species such as Dictyostelium discoideum; rather, academic ornithologists should
turn their attention to the genetic and mutational techniques that have been
developed in the microbial and agricultural worlds. The DNA sequencing technology now available to researchers
is staggering; we can sequence billions of base pairs of DNA in less than a few
days. Other groups of researchers
have used this data to characterize soil meta-communities, identify mutations
in agricultural crops, and delimit the mutations associated with coat color in
some mouse species.
Not
only are these techniques providing truck-loads of data, they are also being
refined by the researchers performing the techniques. The researchers have worked out most of the kinks associated
with common next-generation sequencing technology thus delivering to ornithological
researchers a massive opportunity that should not, and can not, be wasted. The reasons that first attracted
researchers to studying birds are the same reasons that should be used to
create a mini-rebirth in academic ornithology.
For
instance, the biological community has gravitated towards studying sexual
selection in birds because of the wealth of color traits and behavioral traits
that are supposedly due to sexual selection. As referenced before, Darwin’s finches are a classic example
of species radiation (as an aside, Darwin didn’t even realize the finches were
all finches until he had an ornithologist friend examine the specimens), and a
considerable number of bird species are studied because of their cooperative
breeding behaviors.
Until
recently, serious genetic studies could only be conducted on “model” species
that were both reared in labs and also had their genome sequenced and
published. Now, a host of
enzymatic digestion and sequencing allow researchers to discover large swaths
of the genome at a time. And in
some cases, these DNA sequences can be mapped onto the genome of a closely
related species; for example, individuals working on Darwin’s finches could map
sequences onto the genome of the zebra finch.
What
does all this mean? First, we can begin to understand the genetic architecture
that underlies the variety of bird colors we see. We would be able to compare tanagers and Northern Cardinals
to see if selection produced red feather color along similar molecular
pathways. We will be able to
delimit the genes that underlie behaviors like cooperative breeding, whereby
some individuals give up the opportunity to breed elsewhere and instead help
raise their siblings or half-sibs.
Once
we define these genes that are correlated with certain morphological or
behavioral traits, it won’t be long before researchers can insert mutations or
new forms of a gene into wild individuals using vectors such as viruses. Field experimentation/validation is
considered the holy grail of field biologists, and in the near future
ornithologists will be able to perform the studies that conclusively show that
certain genes are responsible for certain traits. Once we understand which genes control which traits, we can
follow those genes over time and track evolution in real time in animal
species.
In
total, the depth and breadth of our understanding of the natural world will
grow exponentially. The only
necessary step is for ornithologists to catch-up with the technology that is
coming online. Regrettably, many
ornithologists are only familiar with the new techniques, but hesitant to dive
into the new world of next-generation sequencing. This is disconcerting as the potential data that could be
collected and analyzed on bird species would firmly entrench ornithology as a
relevant and exciting field of biology.
Indeed, there is no reason why the bird traits that have drawn both
researchers and the public to birds in the past, can’t be studied and understood
using the new technology we have now.
Importantly, if academic ornithologists do take advantage of the
opportunities presented by new sequencing technology, then we could reverse
declining membership in bird societies and potentially engender a new renaissance
in birding.
Gavin is a PhD candiate at the University of Miami studying cooperative behavior in Sociable Weavers. To learn more about Gavin, see our Guest Writers page.
We at BoomCha are excited and hopeful to hear from you. Please comment on this post with your thoughts, concerns, and opinions on Gavin's piece.
Gavin is a PhD candiate at the University of Miami studying cooperative behavior in Sociable Weavers. To learn more about Gavin, see our Guest Writers page.
We at BoomCha are excited and hopeful to hear from you. Please comment on this post with your thoughts, concerns, and opinions on Gavin's piece.
I'm not sure that next gen sequencing, or linking phenotype and genotype in birds is the answer to solving issues in the AOU, COS, WOS, etc. I'm not convinced that the following statement is necessarily true : "the decline in the groups also reflects a similar, though less drastic, proportion of research biologists performing research on natural populations."
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't see how genomics and linking traits to alleles changes this for field experiments with birds more than any other taxonomic group. I don't question that new molecular techniques open up new exciting questions in ecology and evolutionary biology, but their reach is larger than just birds, and there are way more tractable systems to answer many questions.
My own personal opinion is that the major ornithological organizations are just dealing with the fact that biology was more bird-centric 100 years ago than it is today, and there is an over-abundance of capital so to speak. Joining together, reducing overhead just makes sense, doing it without upsetting anyone and their historical traditions and "culture" is the hard part.
I think the great evolutionary biologists and ecologists out there aren't so loyal to a taxonomic group as much as a related group of questions, for good reasons.
and lastly, next gen sequencing is EXPENSIVE, yeah that will change, but it's worth mentioning.
Hmm, all of this does seem new and exciting but do we really need to know the answers? Conservation of species and habitats should be a priority over sequencing gene pathways.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to imply that next-gen sequencing and gene manipulation were a silver bullet for ornithological groups; however, in my anecdotal experience with speaking to citizens about science, they are interested in birds, but are blown away by developments such as sequencing genomes in a day and building proto-cells as has been done by Craig Venter's group. I don't see any reason these two should be mutually exclusive.
You rightly point out that questions are the fundamental driver in ecology, evolution, and behavior; moreover, birds are often not the ideal study group for certain questions. For instance, many individuals in the field of social evolution are now using social amoebae (previously known as slime moulds) and bacteria to do evolutionary experiments in a matter of weeks! Birds provide opportunities in studying things such as sexual selection, color evolution, and cooperative breeding that few other systems rival in terms of diversity and independent evolution of these characteristics.
It seems that combining the groups would make sense with or without declining membership; though I think declining membership is more of a driver than you concede.
Next generation sequencing is expensive, but the rate at which sequencing costs are being cut in half is faster than the rate at which computer processing doubles - which is considered a standard for technology. Further, certain digestion-based sequencing methods allow us to sequence large portions of the genome without having to assemble everything, further reducing costs. It seems likely, especially with new nanopore sequencing methods, that we will be sequencing individual genomes for several hundred dollars within the next decade.
To Unknown,
You bring up a point which is worthy of debate and which has been debated for some time. Allocation of limited resources is a major issue for funding agencies. In a more ideal world, countries like the USA would allocate more to conservation efforts. I do want to point out that increased understanding of species genetics is often used as an argument for conservation. The more we know about population genomics, especially with small populations, the more we can speak to the need of conservation.
-Gavin