Sexual Selection and Hyla gratiosa: Barking Fast and Barking Long

In regards to sexual reproduction, the selection of potential mates can generally be thought of as functioning along one of four lines; through identifying Good Genes, receiving Direct Benefit, via Sensory Bias and by Fisherian Runaway. However, even though most species have adapted to one of the core strategies listed above, the methods of selection themselves are far from being restrictive. In fact, these strategies of mate choice may operate independently, collectively or in conjunction with other aspects of local ecology and Natural Selection – they’re not by any means exclusive. In a word, the processes under which one chooses a mate can be rather “complex”.

In considering the complexity of this dynamic, evolution and sexual selection have, on the average, placed the female gender in a position to choose between potential male reproductive partners; when it comes to sex, the females are the deciders.

Why?

Well, this is so for a few different reasons. One of which is that females are generally the limiting gender in a population. This means that they ultimately control population numbers and take on the added burdens of producing ova and caring for young – both of which can be taxing to available resources. In addition, females also tend to be fewer in number within a given population, often outnumbered by the males.

So, if the power of mate choice belongs to the female, on what grounds is her selection to be made and what criteria are weighed and measured prior to committing to such a costly reproductive venture?

Certainly, any mate is better than no mate at all, but when the opportunity presents itself wouldn’t it be beneficial to capitalize on the availability of the most virile, successful or healthy male – how to choose?

For Hyla gratiosa, the “barking treefrog,” the female’s choice of mate seems to center on the duration and frequency of the boy’s bark.



I took this H. gratiosa snapshot two weeks ago near Wildwood, Fl

Hyla gratiosa is a rather robust looking treefrog that grows to be somewhere between five and seven centimeters as an adult. Found in the southeastern United States, these guys are easily recognized by their spots, which cover large portions of their back and legs.

Back View of above Specimen

Although generally spending the majority of their time high in the trees, they have been known to venture to the ground during the summer months in efforts to cool off in the shade of herbaceous ground plants. Mating season pushes the males to water where they call, or “bark,” for females. The male’s “bark” during mating season (March through August) is loud and explosive. Often repeated in intervals of a second or two, the duration and frequency of their call has the ability to communicate health and virility to the inquiring female.

You can Listen to a Sample “Bark” from the Smithsonian HERE (at Bottom of Page).

In testing how the female places value on the calls of the male, a couple of researchers from James Madison University recorded and played back the calls to females in order to judge the their response to the stimulus. Basically, they went out and caught females (actively engaged in amplexus), took them to a prepped area, placed them behind blinds, and then played them calls of varying structure. Once the calls had been played, the blind was lifted from the female frog and the researchers watched as she either moved to engage her would be suitor – a sound speaker, or took a non-responsive action.

Going into the experiment, the researchers developed four hypotheses to describe possible ways in which the female may assess the calls:

(1) Single-trait Hypothesis. Females may perceive multiple cues as a single trait, even though researchers may identify them as separate traits.

(2) Amplifier Hypothesis. A trait may not be directly assessed by females but may amplify another trait that is assessed directly, thereby allowing females to better discern differences between males in the assessed trait.

(3) Hierarchical Hypothesis. Females may assess traits in a hierarchical fashion, basing their choice on the higher level trait whenever this trait differs between males and using lower-level traits only when higher-level traits are difficult to discern between males.

(4) Simultaneous Hypothesis. Females may base their choice of mates on multiple traits, combining preferences for individual traits. Preferences for traits may be combined additively.


Following the experiment, the researchers concluded that the females consider both the rate and duration of the call independently, but they show an overall leaning towards high call rates over those of an extended duration. However, this preference only stands true with in certain ranges of acceptability, if the frequency of the male’s call rate falls below a certain threshold, the female will additively consider the duration as well.

Hypothesis 4, the Simultaneous Hypothesis, seems to best describe the female barking frog’s call selecting criteria.

BURKE, E., & MURPHY, C. (2007). How female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, use multiple call characteristics to select a mate Animal Behaviour, 74 (5), 1463-1472 DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.017

Organic Chemistry and a Walkingstick Insect

The “two-striped” walkingstick (Anisomorpha buprestoides) is a familiar species in the southeastern United States. Here in Florida, there are a few varieties, each of which can be distinguished in field by the color of the parallel stripes that run down the length of their back. For example, the male and female pictured below (snapshots taken last week) are commonly referred to as the “brown two-striped” walkingstick. Other colormorphs include the “white two-striped” and the “orange two-striped”.

Representing one species of the more than 2500 known walkingsticks, Anisomorpha buprestoides are notorious for their ability to produce and dispense noxious and irritating chemicals. Used as a defensive mechanism, the harsh organic isomers (different compounds with the same molecular formula; i.e. they’re bonded differently) produced by the walkingstick are sprayed from the thorax into the face of would be predators - and the occasional annoying human.

Recent work published to the Journal of Chemical Ecology has shown that the isomers produced by A. buprestoides can be found as one of three diastereomers: anisomorphal, dolichodial, and peruphasmal. Furthermore, the relative proportions of the stereoisomers produced are unique to the age and geographic location of the walkingstick.

NOTE: To avoid painful besiegement by “chem-talk,” linked here is a quick refresher video on isomers; for those long removed from an organic chemistry class (Courtesy of YouTube’s “ValChemistry”).

The correlation that has been found to exist between the insect’s chemical defenses and its location and maturity seem to suggest a genetic based mechanism of development as opposed to a plant (food) or environmental based means of acquisition.

Incidentally, the photographing of a male and female together is by no means a rare occurrence. The male of the species typically attaches himself to the female when she reaches sexual maturity. He does this by locking his cerci (claspers located at the end of his abdomen) to her abdomen. There he remains – indefinitely. He’ll remain attached through her repeated molting cycles, frequently even observed being dragged behind her as dead weight…


Dossey, A., Walse, S., & Edison, A. (2008). Developmental and Geographical Variation in the Chemical Defense of the Walkingstick Insect Anisomorpha buprestoides Journal of Chemical Ecology, 34 (5), 584-590 DOI: 10.1007/s10886-008-9457-8


UPDATE: Steve (a chemist) has posted an addendum to this article at Bridgehead Carbons with additional info on walkingsticks and the chemistry described in the cited article. Check it out!

Thinking Outside the Niche

Ecologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Mark McPeek (Professor at Dartmouth College, and Editor-in-Chief of The American Naturalist) spoke at Florida State Thursday and Friday of last week. Unfortunately, fieldwork prevented my attendance at the first lecture, but luckily I did manage to make Friday’s session.

McPeek’s recent work has centered on community assembly in freshwater ponds, with a specific focus on the evolution and ecology of damselflies. His work as a whole (See his publications HERE) demonstrates an exceptional cross-discipline framework with representation from both the applied and theoretical aspects of population ecology, genetics, molecular systematics, comparative biology, geology and paleontology.

During Friday’s talk, McPeek discussed the biogeography, reproduction, speciation and coexistence/co-occurrence of several Enallagma species. After first describing the spatial and temporal similarities that exist between periods of past glaciation and the range expansion/speciation events recorded in the DNA of damselflies, he moved on to the neutral theory of community ecology.

The neutral theory of ecology basically maintains that a portion of the biodiversity displayed within an ecosystem is attributable to species that occupy identical, or nearly identical, niches (i. e. these species occupy comparable positions in the foodweb and utilize the same biotic and non-biotic resources). In addition, the neutral perspective states that although some phenotypic disparities may occur between different species, these disparities have no affect on the critters’ fitness or demography.

Using Enallagma as a case study, McPeek described a recent experiment in which the neutral theory was put to the test. Through directly manipulating the relative abundance (the number of one species) and absolute abundance (the total number of both species) of two like-species, McPeek placed two varieties of Enallagma in identical cages with tightly controlled environmental parameters; included as part of the tightly controlled parameters was the presence of a fish – a predator of Enallagma.

What McPeek discovered was that manipulation of one species’ relative abundance affected fitness little, whereas manipulation of the total abundance of both species showed direct effects for both.

His conclusion…

Although the two varieties of damselflies are sexually isolated, for the purposes of ecological functionality the two species are essentially one in the same.


For more on McPeek’s ideas regarding the neutral theory and niche differentiation, check out his publications list (linked above), specifically the article:

Leibold, M., & McPeek, M. (2006). COEXISTENCE OF THE NICHE AND NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVES IN COMMUNITY ECOLOGY Ecology, 87 (6), 1399-1410 DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1399:COTNAN]2.0.CO;2

Wetland Plant of the Week #27

Sarracenia minor

"Hooded Pitcher Plant"

As with Sarracenia leucophylla and Sarracenia flava (Ecographica’s Wetland Plants of the Week numbers 24 and 25), the hooded pitcher plant is an Obligate, insectivorous member of the Sarraceniaceae Family that has evolved highly specialized leaves that are capable of capturing invertebrates. Native to Florida, this perennial plant displays yellow to yellowish-green flowers and leaves that are around 26 centimeters in length. One leaf – the hood – has adapted in such a way to overlap the cupped base of the plant, forming a "hood".

As with the above mentioned Sarraceniaceae, this plant loves wetlands, but demonstrates a greater tolerance for mesic environments than does the other two.

These were photographed in the Osceola National Forest a couple weeks back.

The Future of Biodiversity Research

I decided to take a short break from scratching my chigger bites to recommend a paper on ecology. The paper reviews the links between biodiversity and ecosystem function, and does an excellent job of clarifying some of the commonly held misconceptions about species diversity.

For instance one of the diversity flavored misconceptions that I encounter on a regular basis centers on the notion that species richness (the count of the different species present at a given location) is the preeminent indicator of ecological stability, quality or “value.”

Yes, richness is absolutely an important measure of a system’s health, however it is just one metric, and even if – during an assessment - one is able to identify a species list two-miles long, there are other factors that need to be considered prior to making a “value – based” determination. After all, the study of ecology should center on evaluating the processes, cycles and organismal traits that drive the actual functionality (energetics, nutrient processing, trophic interactions, etc…) of the system at hand.

It’s all about the interactions.

In other words, although having a large variety of species in an ecosystem is generally a good thing, there is always going to be some redundancy built in; some species have a higher “value” than others, some contribute less to the foodweb, some more…

So, is diversity important - yes! But not only diversity in nominal place holders, what’s important is a diversity of ecological functions. Do the traits of those present facilitate the system? Are there traits lacking in the system that, if present, would bring enhancement? What are these traits, and how can they be measured?

The recommended paper:
Reiss, J., Bridle, J., Montoya, J., & Woodward, G. (2009). Emerging horizons in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24 (9), 505-514 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.018

NOTE: I don’t intend the above to deride any particular species; all have ecological “value” beyond the aesthetic. My point is simply that the concept of species diversity and its associated measure, species richness, can sometimes be mishandled.

Sort of a minor pet peeve of mine, like ecologists that think of ecological succession as a predetermined, unavoidable “potential” towards which all communities strive. This, despite the conflicting and limiting physical conditions in which the community currently resides; but that’s another rant...

The Selfish Bee’s Genes and the Selfish Gene’s Bees

Because of the deputation of workers as caregivers, the assigned reproductive responsibilities of the Hymenopteran queen, and other observed caste-like divisions of labor, eusocial invertebrates such as bees and ants are often presented as the exemplars of group selection theory. However, recent research published in Molecular Ecology suggests that the loyalties and actions displayed by some members of these social groups hint at far more self-centered motivations.

The research, conducted using Brazilian stingless bees (Melipona scutellaris), examined the genotypes of approximately 600 bees to ascertain parentage. What the scientists discovered was that more than 20% of the male bees present in the average hive had been the offspring of worker bees - not that of the queen bee. Further, of this 20% of worker born males, 80% had been derived from worker-lineages extending from the previous queen, not the matriarch currently holding the throne! This means that not only are about a quarter of the hive’s males being propagated by workers, but they also seem to be exceeding the average lifespan of the other queen-rendered bees by about three times, and they are actively carrying on the tradition of unauthorized reproduction.

Minimally stated, the idea of group selection holds that the ebb and flow of a group’s gene pool is determined by the benefit of specific alleles rendered to the group as a whole; this as opposed to a gene pool being composed of a conglomerate of genes beneficial only to the individual members therein - or to the genes themselves. Said somewhat differently, group selection contends that the individual members of a group (species, nest, hive, etc…) may sacrifice their own individual fitness, if such sacrifice would be advantageous to the assembly of individuals viewed as a single unit.

In haplodiploid critters, such as the currently discussed bees, benefit to the hive is obtained via a caste system in which workers choose to help raise the queen’s offspring (their sisters) instead of actively reproducing themselves. Kin selection, generally thought of as the antithesis of group selection theory (though, the theories aren’t necessarily exclusive), explains the eusocial dynamic by means of a gene centered perspective. This view justifies the sacrifice of workers through demonstrating that the genes present within the workers can be amplified in the gene pool if they promote the success of their sisters over that of their own young. This because workers have a higher degree of relatedness (i.e. share more genes) to their sisters than to their own offspring.

As stated on page 7 of the paper, “…the greater reproductive rate of workers derived from a superseded queen is also consistent with kin selection theory, given that it pays workers more from exploiting the colony if costs are carried by less related individuals.”

At any rate, it also turns out that the bees from this study are not only being produced from lines other than the current queen’s, but they also contribute nothing to the hive in terms of labor or work – they get a free ride…


From page 8; “These results are the first explicit demonstration that conflict over male parentage in insect societies is not just played out between the queen and workers and between the workers of one generation, but that the conflict may also spill over from one worker generation to the next.”


ALVES, D., IMPERATRIZ-FONSECA, V., FRANCOY, T., SANTOS-FILHO, P., NOGUEIRA-NETO, P., BILLEN, J., & WENSELEERS, T. (2009). The queen is dead-long live the workers: intraspecific parasitism by workers in the stingless bee

Molecular Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04323.x

Hunting Down Darwin

Probably old news for most, but new to me; funny - but sort a scary too...

Wetland Plant of the Week #26

Dichromena colorata

"White-Top Sedge"

White-top sedge, or star rush, is an herbaceous perennial plant with linear erect leaves and slender tubular stems. The flowers of Dichromena colorata are white with two stamens and no perianth; they can have three to ten bracts. A member of the Cyperaceae and a Facultative Wet species, star rush is found throughout Florida.

This one was photographed on Wednesday near Wildwood, Florida.

A Day at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History

I’ve just returned from a visit to my hometown of East Liverpool, Ohio (my trip north is the reason for the lull in activity here over the past 10 days); although, the majority of my time there was spent visiting with family and catching-up with old friends, I did find the opportunity to travel 45 miles due east to a world renowned museum – the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Growing-up an hour’s drive from one of the planet’s largest dinosaur collections was an absolute privilege. I first visited the museum in conjunction with a fifth grade field trip; since that inaugural adventure into the Mesozoic return pilgrimages have been made uncountable times with each stopover as awe-inspiring as the first. Even beyond the dinos, the museum exhibits an extraordinary gem and mineral collection, an Egyptian hall, its own biology field station, and an absolutely fantastic geology section - the kind of place that motivates both kids and adults to engage the world of science.

The museum is stunning; from the entrance greeting by Galileo to the type specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex (CM 9380) the Carnegie is extensive, immaculate and breathtaking - hats off to the museum’s staff, contributors and the city of Pittsburgh.

Pasted below are a few snapshots taken during my visit, there’s also an ABC News video embedded that provides a little more info on the museum’s recent 36-million dollar “Dinosaurs in Their Time” expansion, which strives to display fossils in natural postures and ecosystems.

The Metacommunity Mannerisms of Foraging Frogs

Last Saturday, snapshots of a spring peeper (see A Peeper’s Problem) were used to springboard a discussion regarding habitat fragmentation and the conservation of species that exhibit behavioral characteristics not exclusively bound to a single ecological community type. The general idea was that saving a forest from commercial harvest, or conserving a wetland, is an essential step towards preserving biodiversity; however just as important to conservation efforts is the protection of wildlife corridors and other thoroughfares used by flora and fauna. In that post, the spring peeper was forwarded as an exemplar of a species whose natural history requires spatial dispersion between differing communities; those communities used for reproduction (wetlands) and those used during non-reproductive adulthood (forests). To further delineate the “metacommunity” concept, the current post aims to look at this idea through the bulging eyes of a different, though not wholly dissimilar, species – the squirrel frog.

As fate would have it, on the very same stormy night that the peeper was victimized by the paparazzi, another frog also happened into the viewfinder – as though he knew that a herpetologically-laden week of community ecology discussions at Ecographica was eminent…

Meet Hyla squirella, the squirrel frog:


The squirrel frog is common throughout the Southeastern United States and like Pseudacris crucifer, Hyla squirella is a terrestrial tree frog that undertakes journeys from “water-to-wood and back again” during its life cycle. These travels are bound to reproduction and early development in water, with maturation and adulthood driving them to arboreal existence in the uplands.


Metamorphosis from tadpole to froglet is the starter pistil for transitioning to the trees, with seasonality - specifically the rainy season - as one of the big signals for movement water-ward. Thus, H. squirella represents a biological link between two ecologically distinct communities; a wetland with depressional geomorphological features that are awash in aquatically adapted plants, invertebrates and fish with fluctuating levels of hydrology and nutrients, VERSUS a forest system with epiphytic plants, wood boring insects and a generally more arid microclimate.

A set of distinct ecological communities that are biologically entangled through the spatial dispersion of commonly hosted, interacting species is one way of defining the term “metacommunity.” Essentially, a metacommunity is an order of ecological organization above the community level. So, moving backwards through the hierarchy, a metacommunity is a set of distinct communities, a community is a set of distinct populations and a population is a set of individuals. And, just as individuals interact and associate with each other under rules established by population dynamics, communities can interact with each other in a landscape through processes that can be described in terms of a metacommunity dynamic.

In traversing ecologically unique community structures, the niche of the squirrel frog presuppose many risks inherit to a world of pavement and progress, but Hyla squirella enters the battle well equipped and is armed with the decision making tools afforded by natural selection.

For example, during ovipositioning the squirrel frog deposits its eggs in elongate, slender strings with each egg lined-up, one after the other, like dominos made of pearls; these strings are laid in waters that have been positively selected for their ability to supply young tadpoles with the resources required for growth and development. For the herbivorous Hyla tadpoles, this means that an abundance of algae, plants and inorganics can be found attached to submersed logs, rocks and other structures. The tads are suspension feeders; this means that they scour the surface of substrates for nutrients, akin to tiny vacuum cleaners, leaving no surface un-sampled. Although food acquisition is vital to the tadpoles ultimate success, another key decision also enters into the equations of the mother frog’s evolutionarily provided calculator – predator avoidance.

In considering the processes under which metacommunal species weigh the risk of death against the benefits of nutrient availability (growth) within a given habitat, C.A. Binckley (Old Dominion University) and W.J. Resetarits (University of Southampton) examined the squirrel frog’s preferences in natal ponds. They constructed 54 experimental ponds in which they controlled nutrient availability and the occurrence of fish that prey on hylid eggs. By comparing the total eggs deposited at each artificial pond, they were able to correlate the pond preference of mother frogs for expressed nutrient availability and predatory risk. Their study demonstrated that within a variable landscape, metacommunal species display habitat choosing behaviors that are in accordance with optimization theory and predicted foraging behavior. In other words, the research showed that the squirrel frogs exhibited a pond choosing behavior which can be affectively viewed as the frog weighing the risk of death against the opportunity for growth; with the frog trying to achieve the lowest possible “mortality /growth” value.

In a similar fashion, it’s a safe bet that similar “decisions” are undertaken by H. squirella when choosing upland habitats as an adult… The decision making toolset programmed into the genes of the squirrel frog not only provides the ability to survive and excel within a variety of community types, it also is the instrument through which communities as distinctive as wetlands and upland forests are linked. Alteration of one habitat, one species, or even one gene, can have reverberations in far ranging ecosystems; this is precisely why conservation of those connections is of the utmost importance.

Binckley, C., & Resetarits, W. (2008). Oviposition behavior partitions aquatic landscapes along predation and nutrient gradients Behavioral Ecology, 19 (3), 552-557 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm164

The Threatened Gopher Tortoise

Sticking with the herpetological theme of the last couple of narrative posts (Diamondback Rattle Snakes and Spring Peepers), I thought that I’d share a couple snapshots and a short video clip of a gopher tortoise from a couple of weeks back.

This gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, was photographed in west-central Florida just outside of a planted slash pine plantation.

Most of the pine plantations in Florida have resident gopher tortoises; however these areas of anthropogenic alteration are far from ideal habitats. The plantations aren’t good for the tortoises primarily because of the fact that the plantations were established for commercial use (wood production) and were therefore seeded very densely to maximize the quantity of trees grown. The extreme density of the canopy trees drastically reduces the amount of light reaching the forest floor and affectively minimizes herbaceous growth and groundcover which the tortoises consume.

In addition to silvaculture (and as with the spring peepers), gopher tortoise populations are also heavily impacted by habitat fragmentation, which is one reason why they are listed as a Threatened Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Here's a quick video of the above tortoise racing to his burrow:

For those that may not be familiar with the gopher tortoise, here’s a pile of info snagged from the Smithsonian Marine Station’s website:

Description:
The gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, is a large terrestrial turtle having forefeet well adapted for burrowing, and elephantine hind feet. The front legs have scales to protect the tortoise while burrowing. Body length averages approximately 25 cm (10 inches), with the shell ranging in height from 15 – 37 cm (6 – 15 inches). Body mass averages approximately 4 kg (9 pounds). Color is a dark brown to gray-black, with a yellow plastron (bottom shell). A gular projection is evident on the anterior plastron where the head projects out from the shell. Sexual dimorphism is evident, with male gopher tortoises having concave plastrons, while those of females are flat. In addition, the gular projection on male plastrons is generally longer than in females (Ernst and Barbour 1972).


Gopher tortoises dig burrows for cover and for nesting. These can be extensive, measuring approximately 4.7 - 11 m (14 – 40 feet) in length (Witz et al. 1991). Burrow depth is heavily dependent on depth of the local water table (Diemer 1986; Burke and Cox 1988).


Trophic Mode:
Gopher tortoises are primarily herbivorous, with the bulk of the diet consisting of low-growing herbs and grasses. Foods most common in the diet are grasses and legume fruits. They are also known to consume pine needles and seeds, oak mast, prickly pear cactus, asters, palm tree fruits, raspberries, black cherry, and gopher apples (Landers et al. 1980; Auffenberg and Franz 1982; Diemer 1986). Gopher tortoises have also been observed to eat mollusk shells and the bones of dead animals, possibly to supplement their diets with additional calcium.


Competitors:
Predators of gopher tortoises include various snakes, fire ants (Solenopsis saevissima), accipiter hawks, buteo hawks, raccoons, opossums, armadillos, skunks, dogs, foxes, feral cats and man all prey on gopher tortoises. Generally, eggs and hatchling tortoises are significantly more at risk for predation than older animals.


Habitats:
Gopher tortoises use a variety of habitats, including beach dunes, scrub, and pine flatwoods. In all habitat types, soils are generally dry, sandy and well-drained. While generally avoiding swampy areas, gopher tortoises in Brevard County, Florida have been observed to inhabit poorly-drained scrub and slash pine flatwoods (Breininger et al., 1991). In this county, higher densities of gopher tortoises were found in poorly-drained sites than in well-drained sites.
Individuals occupy distinct home ranges, with male home ranges typically being larger than those of females. In east-central Florida, home ranges of male tortoises averaged 1.9 ha (4.7 ac), while those of females averaged only 0.65 ha (1.6 ac). A tortoise excavates several burrows for its use within the home range. Burrows typically are dug at a 30 degree angle from the surface. In Florida studies, male tortoises dug between 8 – 35 burrows. Females tended not to use as many burrows as males, averaging between 3 – 17 burrows (Breininger et al., 1988).

Tortoise densities tend to be higher in fire-adapted communities (Auffenberg and Franz 1982; Diemer 1986). In the absence of fire, canopy trees grow large and shade out the herbaceous vegetation that gopher tortoises rely on as their primary food source.


Associated Species:
Gopherus polyphemus is considered a keystone species in that more than 80 different species live in their burrows, or are dependent on their burrows for protection. Some of these species, such as the gopher frog (Rana areolata), the pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) the indigo snake (Dymarchon corais), the scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) and in inland prairies, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) are rare (Burke and Cox 1988; Spillers and Speake 1988; Stout et al. 1988;Witz et al. 1991).

VIDEO: Biomimicry in Action

Although the point of this talk is demonstrate how the natural world can provide design models for advances in human technology, what I really enjoyed about it was the awe-inspiring adaptations shown by the critters of interest – useful to humans or not. And, the image of the kingfisher diving is awesome!





From TED
Janine Benyus has a message for inventors: When solving a design problem, look to nature first. There you'll find inspired designs for making things waterproof, aerodynamic, solar-powered and more. Here she reveals dozens of new products that take their cue from nature with spectacular results.