research

In the Field: Macro Photography, Microscopy & How Butterflies Create Color

YouTubeCompilation_All_Wings9.jpg

Working in the Amazon rainforest has its challenges. To name an obvious one, it can be difficult to take equipment into remote field sites in order to conduct research. Fortunately, we live in an exciting time, as technology is rapidly becoming simultaneously cheaper and more portable. In this post, I want to share a couple tools that I use to document small organisms in the rainforest, including the wing structures of butterflies and moths, as well as discuss the fascinating ways that biology creates color.

Macro shot of a Heliconius butterfly wing. The different colors (oranges, yellows, blacks) are caused by pigment production in each individual scale. MP-E65mm, ƒ/11.0, 1/125, ISO 200.

Macro shot of a Heliconius butterfly wing. The different colors (oranges, yellows, blacks) are caused by pigment production in each individual scale. MP-E65mm, ƒ/11.0, 1/125, ISO 200.

For starters, digital SLR cameras and macro lenses are powerful handheld tools that I use to document the biological diversity of tiny creatures that inhabit South America. I'm currently using a Canon 70D camera body equipped with the shockingly powerful MP-E 65 Macro lens. This lens is truly a macro beast, magnifying up to 5 times (aka a magnification ratio of 5:1) and allows me to get sharp images of microscopic structures, such as butterfly wing scales. For shots of the whole organism, I typically use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens, which I really love for its versatility and sharpness. In combination, the 100mm and MP-E 65 are a fantastic combination for macro photography in the field, allowing me to document small organisms such as insects, as well as zoom-in even closer to resolve  specific regions.

Here's a video explaining how these butterflies create color & using the Foldscope to investigate scale structures.

At our remote outpost in Sumaco, Ecuador, tinkering with my camera to photograph insects and butterfly wing scales.

At our remote outpost in Sumaco, Ecuador, tinkering with my camera to photograph insects and butterfly wing scales.

s an entomologist in the Amazon, I've been able to study a broad range of fascinating creatures, from Glowing Worms to Tentacled Caterpillars. More recently, I've become enthralled by the wings of butterflies and moths, and more specifically am curious about how these organisms produce such an incredible array of colors.

Macro of a Morpho wing, note the blue scales which do not contain any blue pigment. They contain nanostructures that bounce light back at the blue wavelength, a form of 'structural color'.

Macro of a Morpho wing, note the blue scales which do not contain any blue pigment. They contain nanostructures that bounce light back at the blue wavelength, a form of 'structural color'.

Butterflies and moths belong to the order Lepidoptera and all members have scales covering their bodies and wings (in Latin, lepis means scale and ptera means wing). With over 180,000 described species, the Lepidoptera are not only diverse in their numbers but also in their colors. Their color arises due to the nature of the scales that they produce and can be due to pigmentation as well as structural color. Whatever the origin, color results from an interaction between light and matter.

Like beautiful painted tiles, the scales on this Phantom butterfly range from shades of pink to entirely transparent. MP-E65mm, ƒ/11.0, 1/125, ISO 200.

Like beautiful painted tiles, the scales on this Phantom butterfly range from shades of pink to entirely transparent. MP-E65mm, ƒ/11.0, 1/125, ISO 200.

Owl Butterflies mating. The large eye spot on the hindwing is thought to startle potential predators like birds, a form of Batesian mimicry in which a harmless organism acquires protection by resembling a threatening animal. 

Owl Butterflies mating. The large eye spot on the hindwing is thought to startle potential predators like birds, a form of Batesian mimicry in which a harmless organism acquires protection by resembling a threatening animal. 

But even with the best macro lenses, it's still tough to resolve the scale structures on the wings of these insects. To get really close, we need to get into microscopy. But any of us familiar with using a microscope know that they are big, cumbersome, expensive pieces of equipment - not exactly compatible with field work. However, last year I came across an ingenious invention by a lab at Stanford, the Foldscope (an origami foldable microscope that costs about one dollar).

Some of the tools in my "mobile lab" kit: a foldable microscope, a DSLR camera with macro lens, a handheld gene sequencer, and my mobile phone.

Some of the tools in my "mobile lab" kit: a foldable microscope, a DSLR camera with macro lens, a handheld gene sequencer, and my mobile phone.

In the past I've posted about using the Foldscope to investigate small critters in the Amazon, but I've recently started using it to look at butterfly and moth wing scales, and it actually does a fantastic job.

An Amber Phantom butterfly with transparent wings. Combining macro photography and the Foldscope, allowing us to see the different scale structures that make up the colored and transparent regions of the wing.

An Amber Phantom butterfly with transparent wings. Combining macro photography and the Foldscope, allowing us to see the different scale structures that make up the colored and transparent regions of the wing.

Here is a dirunal moth in the family Uraniidae, notice how the scales that appeared green shift to a violet/purple color under the Foldscope. I imagine that the colored scales have microstructures that produce green wavelengths under normal sunlight conditions and changing the incoming light in the microscope has shifted the wavelength output. This is the reason Morpho butterflies appear iridescent blue, due to the structure of their nanoscales (called mullions).

Compilation of butterfly wing scales through macro photography and Foldscope microscopy, all taken while in the field in the Amazon Rainforest.

Compilation of butterfly wing scales through macro photography and Foldscope microscopy, all taken while in the field in the Amazon Rainforest.

Hope you enjoyed, you can check out more updates via Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube!

-Aaron

Entomologists and Social Media: Giving Science Communication a Facelift

The Entomological Society of America Conference (#EntSoc2014) was recently hosted in Portland, Oregon. As one can imagine, the largest gathering of arthropod-focused scientists in the United States yields hundreds of presentations, posters, meetings and symposia on the latest breakthroughs in entomological research. But this year’s conference hosted some new kinds of symposia for the first time ever, and they revolved around science communication. Two notable symposia were:

  • Reaching Beyond. This symposium demonstrated how social media have bridged the gap between entomologists and the public. Social media are powerful tools for enhancing and disseminating research, and present many opportunities for entomologists willing to look beyond their horizons. Some outstanding speakers in this session were Gwen Pearson (aka ‘Bug Gwen’), Phil Torres, Jessica Honaker and Kristina Reddick (aka the ‘Bug Chicks’), and Morgan Jackson.
  • Grand Challenge: Effective Science Education with Communication. A grand challenge on our horizon is highly effective science communication. From invasive species education to political policy making decisions, effectively communicating the importance of our research and results is essential. The symposium addressed the need for better communication and gave many examples of how to do so. In this session, I presented a poster along with co-authors Mike Bentley, Jake Bova, Geoff Gallice, and Lary Reeves. The title was “Social Media: Giving Science Communication a Facelift”.

A link to a PDF of the poster can be found at the end of this post, but here are some of the sections and highlights!

Introduction

Social media has revolutionized the interactive sharing of ideas using online communities, networks, and crowdsourcing [1,2]. For scientists, these online tools also offer a powerful platform to boost professional profiles, accelerate or create new contacts with research colleagues, increase article citations, and enhance communication between scientists and the general public. We draw upon recent research on the topic of social media and science communication, as well as some of our own experiences with Facebook, Twitter, crowdfunding and blogs to show how social media has influenced our scientific outlook, particularly in entomology and tropical conservation.

Facebook

  • Facebook is the most widely used social media site with over 1.35 billion monthly active users (http://goo.gl/kUUYcg). This site can be utilized to create a public profile or page that may reach a different audience than Twitter or blogs.
  • The Facebook page ‘Relax. I’m an Entomologist’ was created by Jake Bova as an education website dedicated to sharing insect and arthropod related news and questions (Fig 1). The page was founded in 2012 and in a relatively short period of time has grown to have over 43,000 total page ‘likes’ with an estimated total post reach to 134,220 Facebook users (https://www.facebook.com/RelaxImAnEntomologist/insights as of 11/5/14)
  • Another Facebook page ‘RACERS’ (Rainforest Adventurers, Conservationists, Educators and Research Scientists) was created in part by Lary Reeves (Fig 1). He and his colleagues share information from research and expeditions and are “racing to generate a better understanding of our planet's tropical forests”.

Twitter

  • Twitter is a microblogging platform that allows users to post short messages, called ‘tweets’ of less than 140 characters. These tweets can be shared and linked to websites or scientific papers. Currently there are 200+ million monthly active Twitter users who post 500+ million tweets per day.
  • Tweeting published findings can communicate research to a broad audience. Some analyses have shown that tweeting papers lead to increased article downloads and citations [3,4] and highly tweeted journal articles are 11 times more likely to be highly cited compared to articles lacking social media coverage [5].
  • We recently tweeted for ‘Real Scientists’, which is a rotational twitter account that features scientists, science writers, communicators, and policy makers (Fig 2). During a one week span, we ‘live-tweeted’ about a recent expedition to the Peruvian Amazon using the twitter handle @realscientists, which currently has over 14,400 followers (https://twitter.com/realscientists as of 11/5/14). We tweeted about a range of topics, including our own scientific research in the Amazon.

Crowdfunding

  • Crowdfunding is a collective effort of individuals who network and pool their money in order to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations. Many researchers are utilizing crowdfunding as an alternative source to subsidize project expenses [6].
  • We recently launched a crowdfunding campaign titled “Science Communicators in the Peruvian Amazon”. The project was run through RocketHub, which is an online crowdfunding website. In addition to raising funds, our goals were to interact with the online community to share the process of scientific discovery and answer questions about nature and biodiversity, all while presenting science in a more user-friendly format.
  • Through this project we successfully reached and passed our funding goal and raised a total of $6,875. This helped to supplement the costs associated with our expeditions and allows us to produce better quality videos and photos related to scientific topics that will be shared with open access online.

Blogs

  • Blog posts can be directly beneficial to scientists, as they can be easily disseminated, linked via search engine terms, and provide an ‘expert’ information source that is accessible for years to come [7]. They can also serve as a robust platform for building an online reputation.
  • For scientists, blogging removes a barrier between the authors and their audience. This transparent communication exposes the public to the scientist as a person and allows them to build trust through the individual, not just the ideas being discussed [8]. A downside to the scientist is that blog posts can require a great time investment (generating high quality posts can take several hours).
  • We have constructed several personal blogs, including ‘The Next Gen Scientist’ and ‘Tropical Wildlife’ though Wordpress and ‘Relax. I’m an Entomologist’ through Tumblr. In addition to creating easily accessible content, we find that blogging also has immediate personal benefits. We attempt to write blog posts about our research or other scientific topics regularly, and this consistent blogging helps us to refine our persuasive writing skills, broaden our base-knowledge, and formulate new ideas.

The Future of Scientists and Social Media

  • Social media outlets have changed the playing field for how scientists interact with one another and beyond academia into policy and public domains. We have presented several online social media tools that can be rewarding for scientists, but many other resources are available such as YouTube, Google+, LinkedIn, Reddit, and ResearchGate.
  • Funding bodies, such as the National Science Foundation, are increasingly looking to support projects that will have broader impacts (http://goo.gl/4RZqkB) and this criteria may be satisfied by a researcher who has an established track record and well thought out online outreach strategy.
  • While some of the current social media tools might one day become outdated in the ongoing evolution of social media services, we, and many other scientists, believe that the use of social media and interactions with online communities will continue to have long-term impact on the development and communication of scientific knowledge [1,2,4,7].

For a PDF version of the poster click the link here: ESA 2014 Poster Social Media Science Communication.

References

  1. Thaler AD, Zelnio KA, Freitag A, MacPherson R, Shiffman D, Bik H, Goldstein MC, McCain (2012) Digital environmentalism: tools and strategies for the evolving online ecosystem in Ghallagher, D., editor. SAGE Reference – Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications, London
  2. Wilcox C (2012) Guest editorial it’s time to e-volve: taking responsibility for science communication in a digital age. Biol Bull 222:85-87
  3. Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE 7(11):e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.004752
  4. Darling ES, Shiffman D, Cote IM, Drew JA (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.16
  5. Eysenbach G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impacts. J Med Internet Res 13:e123
  6. Whear RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J (2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends Ecol Evol 28:71-72 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.11.001
  7. Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biol. 11(4): e1001535. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
  8. Wilkins JS (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. TREE 23:411-413