Tag Archives: twitter

My real science (Day 1)

In my last post, I gave a quick overview of my week curating the @realscientists twitter feed, but focused – unsurprisingly – on the delights of the ‘humpoff’ and its ensuring press coverage! As a new scientist takes the reins of that account each week, condemning the previous tweets to the depths of the internet, I thought I would collect my science-based tweets into a post here. Mainly to show how my week was basically an exercise in drawing diagonal lines. I’ll begin here with my tweets from the first day of my week in charge, lightly edited to add a mild bit of coherence:

Let’s start with a little background… obviously, no week on evolution would be complete without some Darwin quotes (taken from ‘Darwin and Genetics‘, an open-access paper by Brian Charlesworth & Deborah Charlesworth):

“The power of Selection, whether exercised by man or brought into play under nature through the struggle for existence and the consequent survival of the fittest, absolutely depends on the variability of organic beings. Without variability, nothing can be effected; slight individual differences, however, suffice for the work, and are probably the chief or sole means in the production of new species.” (DARWIN, 1868)

CHARLES Darwin was the first person to appreciate clearly that evolution depends on the existence of heritable variability within a species to generate the differences between ancestral and descendant populations. The development of Darwin’s thoughts on the nature and causes of evolution is clearly documented in his “transmutation” notebooks of 1836–1838 (BARRETT et al. 1987). Once he had decided that species originated by “descent with modification,” Darwin quickly realized the need to find a mechanism for accomplishing the changes involved. In formulating the idea of natural selection, he was greatly influenced by the experience of breeders in artificially selecting populations of domestic animals and plants. Chapter 1 of The Origin of Species (DARWIN 1859) is famously devoted to documenting the existence of variability in these populations and the effectiveness of artificial selection:

The key is man’s power of cumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to himself” (DARWIN 1859, p. 30).

It was only a short step to applying this observation to selection in nature:

Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? … This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection (DARWIN 1859, pp. 81–82).

In essence, Darwin identified three conditions that are necessary for evolution via natural selection. First off: a population must exhibit phenotypic variation. ‘Phenotype’ is a fancy word for the set of observable characteristics of an individual. An individual’s phenotype can be anything we measure: body size, shape, development time, lifespan… (And, yes, their behaviour too! But let’s leave that for a little bit later). Have a look at people around you: you (hopefully) all have the same number of fingers and toes, but what about something like, say, height? If you measured the heights of a population (and grouped number of ppl by height), your graph might look like this:


So: within a given population, individuals must be different from each other. What next?

Darwin realised that (ii) these variations must be associated with differences in survival and reproduction. (Hmm… as a very short man, I now regret using ‘height’ as the example trait in my previous tweet… ). Anyway! Individuals must be different from each other, and these differences create variation in how they survive and reproduce…

(iii) Variation in traits must be heritable: parents and offspring must resemble each other in these traits.

Famously, Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s work, meaning that he did not know what the mechanism of inheritance was. On Wed, I’ll talk a little abt quantitative genetics, which helps us understand the inheritance of traits that vary in a continuous fashion (NOTE: I don’t think I did). For now, let’s consider what contributes to phenotypic variation: obviously genes, but what else?

An individual’s environment can strongly affect its phenotype. Recently, the UK govt has come under fire for considering dropping free school meals – health professionals and academic studies claim that diet quality affects academic performance: environment changes the phenotype! Broadly speaking, that would represent a change in the population mean due to environmental effects: i.e., as diet quality (envt value) increases, so academic performance increases.

trait mean

But we also know that different genotypes vary in trait value:

trait mean2

…and genotypes can differ in how they respond to environmental change: known as genotype-by-environment interactions:

trait mean3

So: heritable phenotypic variation is needed for evolution by natural selection, and phenotypic variation can be affected by G, E, GxE! Excitingly, environmental effects can also change the extent of the variation available for selection to act on:

trait mean4

These lines represent what we call ‘reaction norms’: a reaction norm is a function that describes the change in a genotype’s phenotype over a range of environments. The ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes as environmental conditions change is known as ‘phenotypic plasticity’. Plasticity enables an organism to ‘fit’ its phenotype to the changing environment. Let’s look at a couple of examples…

The desert locust Schistocerca gregaria has a solitary form, in which individuals are well camouflaged and avoid others. However, in their gregarious form they are more active, brightly coloured and form vast migrating swarms.


This change is elicited by repeated physical contact, e.g. through touching or jostling, producing the plastic response. Rogers et al tickled locust legs repeatedly w/ paintbrushes, causing full behavioural ‘gregarisation’ within hours!

Screen Shot 2015-10-11 at 21.51.07Screen Shot 2015-10-11 at 21.51.22

You can watch a rather melodramatic video about this experiment:


It’s since been found that the mechanism is serotonin-related – read more about this here.


This is cool, but I’m more interested in plasticity in ‘labile’ traits: those that are expressed repeatedly across an individual’s lifetime. For example: song! Plenty of animals sing to mark out territories or attract mates, and this is a trait that is expressed repeatedly. There has been a lot of interest in how animals can respond / have responded to the increase in background noise caused by human activity (@c_n_anderson then sent me two reviews on this topic: Patricelli & Blickley 2006Barber et al 2010). In one experiment, Verzijden et al recorded territorial male chiffchaffs singing along quiet riverbeds and near busy highways. They then raised the background noise at riverbed territories to highway levels, and recorded those birds again… and, finally, recorded the same birds again at normal riverbed background noise (having previously increased it). Here, you can see the plastic response of the riverside birds in minimum song frequency as background is manipulated:

Screen Shot 2015-10-11 at 22.03.12

So, why aren’t all animals all plastic all the time? There are costs and limits to plasticity; one such cost is ‘environmental mismatching’. What if there’s insufficient environmental information, or the wrong environmental information is used? The phenotype is then not the ‘right’ one for the environment. This is a particular problem for ‘developmental plasticity’, where individuals use information about their environment to ‘predict’ the optimal phenotype. There’s a nice paper by on ‘socially cued anticipatory plasticity’: Kasumovic & Brooks 2011. So, that might be bad when the trait is fixed at some point, but what abt individuals that can change the trait in a flexible fashion?

Firstly, let’s keep in mind that assessing the environment and changing trait values is likely to be costly (in time and resources – we’ll talk more later about the importance of resource costs). But also, plasticity itself – the ability to change – may be under selection! Not just the intercept, but the slope of the reaction norm! Plasticity can be adaptive (producing a phenotype in the same direction as the optimal value in the new environment), but can also be maladaptive. Only if the plasticity itself can be shown to have been moulded during evolutionary history to be more effective than a canalised (fixed) phenotype can we consider it to be adaptive. We’ll talk a little more about this tomorrow, but here’s a taster: Earlier, we considered a bird that changes its song frequency depending on background noise. What if only some individuals did that, while others maintained a steady frequency, no matter what the background noise. In some environments, plasticity is undoubtedly better. BUT… what if, in general, this actually gave no survival / reproduction advantage over time? In that case, while the ability to modulate frequency might appear to be adaptive, there’s no evidence that this is the case! MIND. BLOWN.

Oh, and also let’s remember selection acts on ‘extended phenotypes’. Fig from Bailey (2012):


(…but feel free to dust off your copy of excellent book as well!)

This resulted in a brief digression about studying plasticity in extended phenotypes using spider webs, and to social behaviour among spiders:

Michelle LaRue then tweeted me her recent paper, which posited that philopatry in king penguins was life history plasticity – perhaps an important way for animals to deal with climate change. This hints at some reasons as to *why* we are interested in plasticity: it lends to the idea of populations moving to novel environments, or coping with changes in environmental conditions.

And, with the sounding of a CLIMATE CHANGE KLAXON, my first day at @realscientists came to an end!


Outreach: starts with Real Science, ends in a #HumpOff

I am coming to the end of my week-long tenure at @RealScientists – a rotational twitter account that brings a different scientist to its readers every week. This week, I started with the best of intentions – tweeting about genotype-by-environment interactions, phenotypic plasticity, and studying ‘animal personality’…

…but things took a turn when I decided to follow Anne Hilborn‘s previous competitive hashtags and start a #HumpOff!

It soon took hold, with entries flooding in from across the world, and covering all manner of amazing humping-related facts! The ‘competition’ even made it into the media, with coverage from the Washington Post, New York Post, io9’s Gizmodo blog, Slate’s French site, what appears to be a Croatian tabloid, Serbian National Geographic, the French newspaper 20 Minutes, and the Independent! I was interviewed for the NY Post via email, but I had to come back from the pub to write my replies – none of which made it into the article. Let’s say it was because they were delayed, not that I’d had a really strong beer and started rambling a bit…! Anyway, I thought I should post my responses, in case anyone is interested in the purpose* behind the #HumpOff.

*may include post-hoc reasoning

How did the idea for HumpOff come about? Is it recurring or was this the first time?

I really enjoyed the ‘JunkOff’ hashtags that Anne Hilborn started recently, getting scientists (and non-scientists) to post photos of animal genitalia (perhaps I should revisit my use of ‘enjoyed’ there…!). My PhD was in the field of sexual selection and life history: I used crickets to investigate how males invest their energy in trying to attract females across different ages, and how this impacts investment at other ages, in lifespan, etc. The side effect of this is that I’ve spent a not-inconsiderable chunk of my adult life thinking and reading about animal sex! I know there is so much awesome and weird sex stuff out there in the animal kingdom – way beyond just genitalia(!) – and I wanted other people to know about it.

Is there a deeper goal? Like awareness or just for fun? 

It’s been a LOT of fun, and the main idea was just to make people aware of just how much crazy diversity there is in animal mating systems – not just between but also within species! There are weapons that evolved through male competition for mates, ornaments from female preferences, alternative strategies (big males that fight rivals for access to females, while smaller males ‘sneak’ matings behind their backs), sexual conflict – where males and females have conflicting interests, which can create ‘arms races’ in evolving adaptations (e.g. in water striders) – and even sex role reversal! For example, in some dance flies, which are studied by my PhD supervisor and his supervisor before him, the females can have ornaments that make them appear bigger in the mating swarms. These females don’t hunt, but instead rely on ‘nuptial gifts’ of prey, offered to them by males during courtship. Males prefer to mate with females that look big and bursting with eggs, so females with ornaments (that make them look bigger) will get more matings, hence more food – this is how we think the ornaments evolved:

Part of my job as an evolutionary biologist is to think about why there is so much diversity (both within and between species). What are the different pressures that select for adaptations? Why is there so much variation within populations, especially in sexually-selected traits? I want people to be aware of the amazing diversity in the animal world, even in the tiniest, weirdest creatures, and think about why these adaptations and systems have evolved.

Do you have a favorite tweet so far? 

So many favourites! Here are a few:

I broke the dreams of someone who posted a nice picture of mating damselflies that create a heart shape:

Male black widows use ‘mating plugs’ to stop subsequent males from inseminating the same female:

Female haglids eat the fleshy hindwings of males during mating – but that gives the males just enough time to attach their spiny genital sex traps, after which they can push the female off their wings but continue the mating!

I don’t even know what is happening here:

But I do love that Nate Morehouse provided a photo of the butterfly ‘vagina dentata’!

Will a winner be announced since its a “competition”? 

Haha, maybe! The anglerfish got a lot of traction, possibly because of the oatmeal comic, and the antechinus also has a lot of fans – which is fair enough, as it’s a tiny, cute mammal that sexes itself to death. However, I think I’ll use my own biases to pick an insect winner. Invertebrates have to get a win sometime, it may as well be for the #HumpOff!

Totally meaningful lists and stuff

Science magazine, ‘inspired’ by Neil Hall’s (borderline?) offensive ‘Kardashian-index’ paper (which has been torn apart by far better people than me, so I’ll just direct you here), has just published a list of ‘The Top 50 Science Stars of Twitter’. Their methods seem strangely flawed for what is considered one of the most prestigious scientific outlets in the world, but perhaps that’s due to their inspiration (Hall’s methods included what I hope to become the norm in all scientific studies from now on: “I had intended to collect more data but it took a long time and I therefore decided 40 would be enough to make a point. Please don’t take this as representative of my normal research rigor.”). They compiled a list of the 50 most followed scientists on the social media platform (how they narrowed down Twitter’s 271 million monthly users to scientists is not yet known, but presumably was far more rigorous than ‘we sat at a table and tried to name some sciencers until we got bored’) and their academic citation counts, then calculated their K-index, stuck them all in a list, and drew some pretty spurious conclusions.

I think my favourite is the following, which also starts with a weird clause that doesn’t really make any sense if you stop to actually think about it:

“Although the index is named for a woman, Science’s survey highlights the poor representation of female scientists on Twitter, which Hall hinted at in his commentary.”

True, the list has more men than women. However, this doesn’t mean female scientists are poorly represented on Twitter. Maybe more people follow male scientists, or you guys mostly thought of male scientists to look up on Twitter (hard to tell from those methods). There could be a load of reasons for either of these things to happen, none of them really all that good. The only conclusion that can be drawn is ‘Science’s survey highlights the poor representation of female scientists in Science’s survey’.

Also, some of the people in the list barely ever tweet: Jerry Coyne (#30) famously hates Twitter (evident to anyone who visits his blog, OH GOD SORRY I MEAN WEBSITE), and Tim Berners-Lee (#9) – while arguably reeeeeeasonably important to the internets in general – has posted a grand total of 542 tweets, which is approximately 1/30th as much as a squirrel has. Anyone who decides to build their Twitter base around this list is likely to be a little disappointed by the results. Of course, this isn’t to denigrate the efforts of people on the list who use social media regularly and engage with people (and when I say ‘engage’ I don’t mean this), such as Karen James or Michael Eisen.

Anyway, I was going to make my own list of ‘Top 50 Scientists on Twitter’, but then I realised that (a) that would also be weirdly flawed, (b) it would take ages, and (c) shut up. Instead I did something else.

Top Animals, based on the AA-index (‘Animal Awesomeness’)

1. Otter (27.3)
2. Axolotl (26.7)
3. Worm (23.9)
4. Gold dust day gecko (19.7)
5. Crab (17)
6. Elephant shrew (15)
7. Bird (12.3)
8. Dragon (9.7)
9. Lantern bug (8.66666666667)
10. Frog?

As you can see, despite the otter taking top spot, mammals are underrepresented in the list. However, given the small number of mammal species relative to insects (for example), perhaps they are actually overrepresented. Maek u think?

Send me your lists of things! I’ll make a list of your lists. MAYBE.

Finally, here are some interesting scientists to follow on Twitter, in no particular order and without really thinking very hard about it or saying anything about them other than they are engaging and informative and funny, which I feel are better reasons to follow people than ‘well, loads of other people are following them’.

Katie Hinde: irrepressible badass

Dr. Wrasse: bowtie dreamboat


Tom Houslay: 😉

Sith Lotus: EXACTLY

Katie MacKinnon: monkeys? monkeys

John Hawks: bones

Michael Eisen: Twitter handle always makes me think about Streetfighter 2

Mike Kasumovic: beard

PS please don’t consider this post as representative of my normal blogging rigour

Update: I have received numerous complaints about the veracity of my own lists. Let me assure you that they are not just inaccurate and hastily-compiled clickbait – but, if you think they are, please feel free to leave a comment and maybe tweet about it a bit? THAT’S RIGHT. YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

Luis Apiolaza’s tips for a good regression course

On Twitter yesterday, Luis Apiolaza shared some tips that he’d given a colleague on what students should learn in a regression course. These are pretty great, so I thought I’d include them as a post here (mostly because that’s useful for me, but also because it’s as if I’ve written a blog post when all I’ve done is screen-grabbed some guy’s twitter feed). Luis is a quantitative geneticist and lecturer at the School of Forestry in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote the ASReml (and ASReml-R) cookbook, runs the excellent Quantum Forest blog that has a general theme of data analysis, is good at the twitter, and – to quote Justin Bieber’s most recent analysis of Bill Clinton – is a ‘#greatguy’*.


* Coincidentally, I also had a turnaround of my views on Apiolaza after video emerged of me exiting a computing lab with a group of unruly S+ users, urinating into a paper recycling bin, spraying cleaning fluid onto a print-out of the ASReml cookbook, and shouting ‘F*ck Luis Apiolaza!’.

ISBE 2012 Lund: follow the #ISBE2012 twitterati!

For those who are blissfully unaware, the International Society of Behavioural Ecology‘s (ISBE) 2012 congress, hosted by Lund University in Sweden, is drawing to a close. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be there as my budget meant that I had to choose between it and Evolution 2012 in Ottawa (of which you can read some of my reports here).

Thankfully, a bunch of your favourite tweeters/tweeps/tweehavioural ecologists (delete as appropriate, especially the last one) are keeping the rest of us in the loop; you can follow the stories as they come by using the #ISBE2012 hashtag. This is a great way to keep up with current and emerging research, as well as just finding out about cool stuff! Here are some highlights:

I urge you all to go and check out the full stream of #ISBE2012 tweets coming from this dedicated bunch of very excited academics – I recommend you follow them all anyway! If you want to find out more about any of the talks, you can look up the speakers on the conference programme. It’s so fantastic and exciting that we have the technology that enables those of us who can’t make these events to keep up with what’s happening, and feel as though we are still a part of it…