One more paper showing pollinators matters

We have a new PrePrint up at the peerJ (note that it is not peer-reviewed yet, but already citable) showing that pollinators increase not only yield, but also the quality of four european crops. While the evidence that pollinators are important for crop production is quite strong now, specially after Klein et al. 2007 review and Garibaldi et al 2013 synthesis, I think our paper still contributes to the field by quantifying the contribution to yield (and quality!) in a experimental way along a landscape gradient. Moreover, I think the introduction and discussion is well crafted and points out some aspects that are difficult to cover in short high impact papers (i.e. like our “Garibaldi” science paper). Which points? You will need to read the paper.

You can see the data were collected in 2005, so it has a long, long story I prefer not to dig in. In any case, it ended up in my table and I experienced the pains (and joys) of working with someone else data. That’s why, after waiting 8 years in a messy excel file, I felt that the data deserved to see the light as fast as possible and I pushed to publish it as a preprint. This is an awesome way to make it public probably ~ 6 months earlier than the final reviewed version. I am also happy to try a new Journal that is doing very nice and innovative things. Taking together this preprint and my F1000Research experience, I really think it makes no sense to hide a paper ready to be read until its final version. This can only slow down science. Read more about preprints here.

PS: Also read Klatt et al 2014 paper on strawberries, which spoiled a bit our findings, but is really good.

Book chapters vs Journal papers

I was offered to write a book chapter (a real one, not for a predatory editorial) and I asked my lab mate what she thought about it, given that time spent writing book chapters is time I am not writing papers in my queue. She kindly replied, but I already knew the answer because, all in all, we share office, we are both postdocs on the same research topic, and in general have a similar background. Then I asked my other virtual lab mates in tweeter and, as always, I got a very stimulating diversity of opinions, so here I post my take home message from the discussion.

Basically there are two opinions: One is “Book chapters don’t get cited” (link via @berettfavaro, but others shared similar stories with recommendations of not to lose time there). However quite other people jump on defending that books are still well read. Finally some people gave his advice on what to write about:

So, I agree that books don’t get cited, but I also agree that (some) books get read. In fact, I read myself quite a lot of science books (Julie Lockwood Avian Invasions is a great in deep book on a particular topic, or Cognitive Ecology of pollinators, edited by Chitka and Thomson, is a terrific compendium of knowledge merging two amazing topics). However: I don’t cite books.

So if you want to be cited do not write a book chapter. If what you have to say fits into a review or a research article, don’t write a book chapter. But if you have something to say for which papers are not the perfect fit (e.g. provide a historical overview of the topic, speculate about merging topics) then write a book chapter! It also will look nice in your CV.

Finally some people had a fair point on availability, a thing to take into account:

@ibartomeus I’ve done 3 this year and I’m concerned about future accessibility. In my field, books are getting expensive too, who buys them?

— Dr Cameron Webb (@Mozziebites) November 8, 2013

In summary:

  • Book chapters are not papers.
  • They won’t get cited, but will get read. However…
  • Make sure your editorial is well-known (& also sells pdf versions /allow preprints in your web)
  •  For early career researchers one/two book chapters can give you credit, but remember that you will be evaluated mainly on papers, so keep the ratio of books/papers low.

PS: Yes, I will write it!

Science at the speed of light

May be is not going that fast, but at the speed of R at least. And R is pretty quick. This has pros and cons. I think that understanding the drawbacks is key to maximize the good things of speed, so here are a few examples.

I have a really awful excel file with a dozen sheets calculating simple diversity indexes and network parameters from my dissertation. I also paste in there the output of Atmar and Patterson Nested Calculator (an .exe program!) and of the MATLAB code that Jordi Bascompte kindly send me to run his nestedness null model. I also used Pajek to plot the networks and calculate some extra indices. It took me at least a year to perform all those calculations and believe me, it will take me another year to be able to reproduce those steps again. That was only 6 years ago. Now, I can have nicer plots and calculate way more indexes than I want in less than 5 minutes using the bipartite package, and yes, is fully reproducible. On the other hand I really understood what I was doing, while running bipartite is completely black-boxy for most people.

Last year I also needed a plant phylogeny to test phylogenetic diversity among different communities. I was quite impressed to find the very useful Phylomatic webpage. I only had to prepare the data in the right format and get the tree. Importing the tree to R proved challenging for a newcomer and I had to tweak the tree in Mesquite beforehand. So yes, time-consuming and not reproducible, but I thought it was extremely fast and cool way to get phylogenies. Just one year after that, I can do all that from my R console thanks to the ropensci people (package taxize). Again, faster, easier, but I also need less knowledge on how that phylogeny is built. I am attaching the simple workflow I used below, as it may be useful. Thanks to Scott Chamberlain for advice on how to catch the errors on the retrieved family names.

library(taxize)
#vector with my species
spec <- c("Poa annua", "Abies procera", "Helianthus annuus")

#prepare the data in the right format (including retrieving family name)
names <- lapply(spec, itis_phymat_format, format='isubmit')

#I still have to do manually the ones with errors
names[grep("^na/", names, value = FALSE, perl = TRUE)]
#names[x] <- "family/genus/genus_species/" #enter those manually

#get and plot the tree
tree <- phylomatic_tree(taxa = names, get = "POST", taxnames=FALSE, parallel=FALSE)
tree$tip.label <- capwords(tree$tip.label)
plot(tree, cex = 0.5)

Finally, someone told me he found an old professor’s lab notebook with schedules of daily tasks (sorry I am terrible with details). The time slot booked to perform an ANOVA by hand was a full day! In this case, you really have to think very carefully which analysis you want to do beforehand. Nowadays speed is not an issue to perform most analysis (but our students will still laugh at our slow R code in 5 years!). Speed can help advance science, but with a great power comes great responsibility. Hence, now is more necessary than ever to understand what we do, and why we do it. I highly recommend to read about recent discussions on the use of sensible default values or the problem of increasing researcher degrees of freedom if you are interested in that topic.

Using twitter to streamline the review process

[Update: Peerage of science (and myself) has started to use the hashtag #ProRev]

You know I am worried about the current status of the review process, mainly because is one of the pillars of science. There are tons of things we can do in the long run to enhance it, but I come up with a little thing we can do right now to complement the actual process. The basic idea is to give the opportunity to reviewers to be proactive and state its interest to review a paper on a given topic when they have the time. How? via twitter. Editors (like i will be doing from @iBartomeus) can ask for it using a hashtag (#ProactiveReviewers). For example:

“Anyone interested in review a paper on this cool subject for whatever awesome journal? #ProactiveReviwers”

If you are interested and have the time, just reply to the twit, or sent me an email/DM if you are concerned about privacy.

The rules: is not binding. 1) I can choose not to send it to you, for example if there are conflict of interests. 2) you can choose not to accept it once you read the full abstract.

Why the hell should I, as a reviewer, want to volunteer? I already got a 100 invitations that I had to decline!

Well, fair enough, here is the main reasons:

Because you believe being proactive helps speed up the process and you are interested in making publishing as faster as possible. Matching reviewers interests and availability will be faster done that way than sending an invitation one by one to people the editor think may be interested (for availability there is not even a guess).

Some extra reasons:

Timing: Because you received 10 invitations to review last month, when you had this grant deadline and couldn’t accept any, and now that you have “time” you want to review but invitations don’t come.

Interests: Because you only receive invitations to review stuff related to your past work, but you want to actually review things about your current interests.

– Get in the loop: Because you are finishing your PhD and want to gain experience reviewing, but you don’t get the invitations yet.

– Because you want the “token” that some Journals give in appreciation (i.e. Ecology Letters gives you free subscription for reviewing for them).

– Because you want to submit your work to a given Journal and want to see how the review process work first hand.

So, is this going to work? I don’t know, but if a few editors start using it, the hashtag #ProactiveReviewer can become one more tool. Small changes can be powerful.

The paper that made my day

I just read this paper by Hanoteaux et al. (2012), describing the effects of spatial patterns on the pollination success of competing species. They show by using a model that when abundant plant species with attractive flower resources are aggregated, they tend to compete with other less attractive plants, but when they are more uniformly distributed the less attractive plants survive better. The model makes sense from a the pollinator perspective, and is in line with the Circe principle, suggested by Lander et al.

Why I am so happy about that? Well, during my PhD I did a very cool paper showing “Contrasting effects” of two invasive plants (yes, abundant and with attractive flowers, bear with me) on the local plant community. While one invasive species competes with the natives for pollinators, the other one has a facilitation effect. The main problem is that I couldn’t really explain why. But now I can! The invasive plant competing with natives (Opuntia stricta) is clustered, while the one facilitating (Carpobrotus aff. acinaciformis) is uniformly distributed! I would love to be able to update my discussion to add this 2012 reference in my 2008 paper. Would be like citing the future! Would be even better to have actual data on the spatial pattern of each species and test the models. But anyway, science works. I’ve spent 5 years showing a pattern I couldn’t fully explain. Now I have a hint on why this pattern occurs. We are moving forward!

 

Biodiversity insurance hypothesis in the real world

This year is being great and we have another great publication in Ecology Letters. We use long-term plant and pollinator data to show that high levels of biodiversity ensure plant pollinator matching over time despite climate change.

The story behind the paper starts 2 years ago (yes, it always take time!) when we did a paper showing that in general, plants and bees are advancing its phenology due to climate change at similar rates. The problem of this general patterns is that we don’t present data on any particular case study to show how this “general pattern” translates to a given system. My idea was doing a small follow-up using apple orchards as a case study. I ran the first analysis and saw that indeed, apple flowering and bee pollinators are advancing at similar rates. Cool, We can now provide a case study that validates the pattern observed! But then I went further and tried to see what happens when the main apple pollinators are analyzed one by one. Here the things got interesting because some bee species DO show a phenological mismatch with apple, but the total synchrony is stable at the community level because the effects of individual species cancel out. When I showed the results to Rachael, she immediately related them to the biodiversity insurance hypothesis, and we start working on validating this idea. That meant looking for more data, including a simulation, and a lot of fun reading the biodiversity ecosystem function literature. Is amazing how much of what we know relating biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is based on experiments in grasslands, so applying those concepts to real world trophic interactions was intellectually very stimulating. I like a lot the final paper and I am looking forward to work more on this topic, hopefully with less complex data.

Software carpentry

I would never call myself a programmer, but as an ecologists I manage moderately big and complicated datasets, and that require to interact with my computer to get the most of them. I self-taught most of the things I need to do and more or less I succeeded on managing my data (MySQL), write simple functions to analyze it (R) or use other people functions (written in Matlab or java for which I have no knowledge at all). That’s nothing fancy. I don’t create software or develop complex simulations. But I still need to communicate with my Mac. Knowing some basic programming is for me the difference between painful weeks of pain and tears vs. a couple of hours performing an easy task. That’s why I sign up for a software carpentry boot camp.

What I learnt?

– The Shell: I rarely interact with the shell, but I had to do it in three occasions in the past. It was always a guesswork. What I needed to do is simply copy and paste some code I find in the internet to run a script written by other scientist tweaked for my data. The tweaking part was usually ok as the specific task I performed came with some help from the authors, but opening the shell and figure out where to start calling the program, or how the path structure works, and all this minor stuff was a shot in the dark. Now i learned some of this basics (pwd ls cd mkdir cp mv cat sort | ) and while I will probably not use them much, next time I need to open the terminal (to run pandoc maybe?) I will know how to start. A cool thing is that you can easily run R scripts*:

Rscript file.R input.txt

or shell scrips:

bash file.sh

* the R script can load the input using:

### Read in command line arguments
args <- commandArgs(trailingOnly = TRUE)
### Read in data from file set in the command line
data <- read.table(args[1],sep=",")

– Regular expressions: I also used regular expressions a couple of times before, but is not in my everyday toolbox. Seeing some examples on how they can be used was a good reminder that I am still doing some tasks in a suboptimal way. (go to www.regexpal.com to play with them) I liked the:

alias grep="grep --color=auto"

to put some color in my terminal by default.

– Git: I am using Git (well, trying to, at least) since a year ago or so. Git is not a hipster caprice, but a solid and tested system to keep track of what you do. However, it can be a bit complicated at the beginning. I was using a GUI so far, but in SWC they show me how to set up a folder and do the usual tasks from the shell. I have to say that while I like the GUI for seeing the history, is way easier to setup a new project from the command line (git init). I also understand now better the philosophy of Git, and why staging (git add) is useful to separate files in different commits (git commit), for example. I also learnt how the gitignore file works. Just list in a txt the files that shouldn’t be tracked with regexp:

*.pdf
data_*.csv

– Unit tests: My friend @vgaltes (a real software dev.) is always pushing me to adopt unit testing, but is very obscure for me on how to do that in ecology, where my code is most times is ephemeral and quick. I usually test moderately complicated functions with fake datasets constructed on the fly to see if they behave as expected. This checks that it is currently doing what you think it is but not tells you if it will always behave this way in other situations. Ethan White advice was to scale up this approach, so that I can save the fake data and run it every time I change the code to see if it still works. Those are regression tests (or vector tests) according to Titus Brown (Read his post, it makes you think). A second step I am not actually ding is Stupidity Driven Testing, (basically test for known bugs). I need to see how I adopt that but having bugs in your code is easier than it looks like, so the more safety controls you have the better. Paraphrasing Titus:

“If you’re confident your code works, you’re probably wrong. And that should worry you.” 

More important is probably learning from seeing other people coding, one of my main problems is that i don’t work closely with more experienced users that often, so i can not learn from imitation. For example, I sucks at respecting name conventions, commenting enough and simplifying complex lines in several simpler lines, but I’ll try to get better at that. Overall I feel as if I started using more complex software directly by running (sometimes in a clumsy way) and this course teach me how to walk properly. Thanks @ethanwhite and @bendmorris!

F1000 Research waves fees for ecologists

Quick post to say that if you are en ecologist you can try now F1000Research for free until the end of the year (just enter the code ECOL16 during submission). Other than the beauty of open access, open peer-review (yes, where reviewers get credit too for doing a good job), and fast publication, I like the freedom of formats offered. They are introducing a new format, “observation papers”, for sharing observations that will not be enough for a full paper, but you don’t want them to be lost forever. Tons of small datasets are wasted because there is no enough data to make a full story. I am thinking specially in master thesis, or studies with low replication. Achieving those in a common place can be a good practice. I see two reasons for doing that at F1000Research. It has a good search tool and they only publish papers if data is released, hence, this data can be used on meta-analysis, for example. The drawback is that it can be expensive for master students, but you can try for free now.

#ESA2103

This will be my second year at ESA. It is also a great chance to see the US friends I made as a PostDoc here, but also to interact with lots of new people.

I would like to do a decent preview of the talks I am looking forward to see, but last week was hectic and I only have the time to post my tentative schedule in EsaSchedule (PDF).

And of course, you should come to my talk (Thursday 02:50 PM – 03:10 PM room: L100B). I have beautiful slides, and I am talking about completely new research. If you are interested in bees, pollination, response/effect traits framework, species loss simulations or Biodiversity ecosystem function, you will like it. And please don’t hesitate to stop to say hello after the talk (or have a beer, or run by the river,…) if you feel like it.

 

More on Pollinator declines

We have a new correspondence article about bee declines that tries to walk the fine line between a non-helping pessimistic attitude about pollinator declines and an unrealistic optimism. As I said before, I think is easier to defend a black or white position about the pollinator crisis, but I think is time to discuss the grey areas. So here I go:

We show two straight forward things. First, that recent papers showing 50% of bee extinctions and papers showing moderate 15% declines (that’s our paper!) are not reporting conflicting results. Is just a matter of scale. Local scale extinctions in heavily altered habitats translate into population declining trends at the regional scale. To read it in positive, we are still on time to revert this declining trends, because the species are there!

Second, we show that not all species respond equally to global change threads, for example some species love agricultural areas. Most important, seems that the species that thrive in crop fields, are the ones responsable of increasing crop production, so the best current ecosystem service providers (a.k.a. bees that visit crops) may be not as threatened as other bees. But please do not take that as “we don’t have to worry at all”. This is the “grey area” where we need to be clear that highly intensified agricultural areas (e.g. huge almond fields in California) may still suffer pollinator shortages. Similarly, we are talking here about crop pollination, but there is a growing evidence that all species are important to maintain (and stabilize) ecosystem functioning in natural areas. So the good news are only partial.

Read it, is a very short piece and is Open access. If someone is curious about F1000Research, just two lines to say that we choose it for the flexibility of formats they allow, the speed of publication and because I was very eager to see how post peer review works. So far we had two very positive reviewers (which made the article indexed in less than 24 Hours!), but no more comments. Is also a short piece so maybe there is not much else to comment?