Who Researched:
Sean T. Carroll, Robert H. Riffenburgh, Timothy A. Roberts, Elizabeth B. Myhre
When Researched:
Received for publication July 9, 2001
Accepted January 8, 2002
Published June 1, 2002
Research Methods Used:
-Survey- 58 questions based on the 1997 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey. These surveys were distributed to all adolescent beneficiaries that came to the Adolescent Clinic.
The survey included questions regarding eating behavior, violence, drug abuse, sexual behavior, suicide, tattoos and body piercings.
What Was Found:
Adolescents with tattoos and body piercings were found to be more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors (disordered eating behavior, gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity and suicide) than those without either.
Specifically:
–Males having tattoos and females having body piercings tended to be more violent.
–Gateway drug use was associated with both tattoos and body piercings of both sexes.
–Hard drug use was associated with the number of body piercings.
–Suicide was associated with both sexes getting tattoos and body piercings at a younger age; however, it was more strongly associated with females having tattoos.
–Overall tattoos and body piercings were more common among females than males.
Body modifications can be an indication of risk-taking behaviors in adolescents. As seen above, risk-taking behaviors (as defined by the CDC) include eating disorders, gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, violence and suicide. If an adolescent is seen to have tattoos and body piercings at a young age, preventative measures (e.g. counseling) can be taken to decrease the chance of further risk-taking behaviors.

Jennifer Rudgers (project leader), Kenneth Whitney and Calvin Trostle of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department of Rice University are requesting $200,000 for a 2-year research project on the ecological and evolutionary impacts of pollinator sharing between cultivated and wild sunflowers. Through a combination of observational and experimental field studies, they hope to examine the interactions between cultivated and wild sunflowers. More specifically, the research aims to study the interaction of pollinators (more often than not bees) with wild and crop sunflowers:
–Does close proximity of wild sunflowers alter behavior, composition or abundance of pollinators visiting crop sunflowers?
–Does close proximity of wild sunflowers alter sunflower crop yield?
–Does close proximity of cultivated sunflowers alter behavior, composition or abundance of pollinators visiting wild sunflowers?
–Does close proximity of cultivated sunflowers alter natural selection of floral traits of wild sunflowers?
Research will be conducted at four different locations in Texas:
–The city of Corpus Christi in collaboration with a local farmer, Charles Ring
–The city of Temple in collaboration with two local farmers
–The city of Lubbock in collaboration with local farmers
–Texas A&M facilities
These principal investigators have recruited 7 students (1 graduate and 6 undergraduate) to help with the project as well as provide a learning opportunity. These students will be given the opportunity to present their findings in the Rice Undergraduate Research Symposium and at national meetings.

Who researched:
Diana Reiss and Lori Marino
When researched:
Received for review on October 3, 2000
Accepted February 20, 2001
Published online before print on May 1, 2001
Where researched:
New York Aquarium in Brooklyn, New York
Research methods:
Two subjects were used: a 13-year-old captive-born male bottlenose dolphin and a 17-year-old captive-born male bottlenose dolphin
During an experiment the dolphin being tested was videotaped 30 minutes prior to feeding (served as a control session) and 30 minutes after feeding (for a total of 63 tapings). During feeding, the dolphin being tested was marked, sham-marked or not marked at all. If marked, the researcher used a temporary nontoxic black ink marker to create a circle, triangle or X-shaped mark. The dolphin being tested was then either exposed to a mirror, a covered mirror (reflective side was turned away from the pool) or no mirror.
Four observers (two experienced dolphin researchers and two highly trained assistants) reviewed the videotapes and marked the duration, location and time of occurrence of specific behaviors. Behaviors caught on the videotape (after feeding) were put into four different categories: self-directed, non-directed, ambiguous or social.
–self-directed–behaviors in which the animal positioned himself at the reflective surface and oriented himself so that the marked area was visible to the animal in the mirror.
–exploratory–self-directed behaviors that included repetitious head circling, close viewing of the eye, and close viewing of the genital region directed at the reflective surface.
–social behaviors–behaviors typically observed when these dolphins confront a familiar or unfamiliar dolphin (jaw-clapping, charging, or affiliative responses).
33 sessions were conducted for the 13-year-old dolphin:
8 pre-feeding control sessions, 8 post-feeding control sessions, 1 post-feeding control session with an additional mirror present, 3 early sham-mark sessions, 6 mark sessions, 4 mark session with an additional mirror, and 3 late sham-mark sessions.
40 sessions were conducted for the 17-year-old dolphin:
20 non-marked pre-feeding control sessions, 11 post-feeding marked sessions with the mirror present, 5 marked conditions with a covered mirror or no mirror, and 4 unmarked conditions with the mirror.
Not all of these sessions were reviewed/used.
What they learned:
Both dolphins provided definitive evidence that they used the mirror to investigate parts of their bodies that were marked. Therefore, this is the first study to show evidence of a non-primate species being capable of mirror self-recognition. This study has provided several possible insights into the bottlenose dolphin: an evolutionary convergence with great apes and humans, an ability to use a mirror to mediate or guide their behavior, and that this species is capable of abstract levels of self-awareness.

Who Researched:
Nathalie T. Burkert, Joanna Muckenhuber, Franziska Grobschadl, Eva Rasky, Wolfgang Freidl
Where Researched:
Austria
When Researched:
Research took place March 2006 through February 2007
Published February 07, 2014
Research Methods Used:
Cross-sectional study:
–First Step–the sample was taken from the Austrian Health Interview Survey, which interviewed 15,474 individual across Austria. The interviewees were asked about their day-to-day diets and placed into four categories:
Vegetarian diet, carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables, carnivorous diet less rich in meat, carnivorous diet rich in meat.
–Second Step–all vegetarians were categorized by their sex, age (within 5 year spans), and socioeconomic status. A vegetarian falling into a certain demographic (ex: male, 20-25 years old, low socioeconomic status) was then paired with someone falling into the same demographic from the carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables category, the carnivorous diet less rich in meat category, and the carnivorous diet rich in meat category. Therefore, there were 330 subjects selected from each dietary habit category.
–Third Step–face to face interviews were conducted to find out each subject’s socio-demographic characteristics, health-related behavior, diseases, medical treatments and psychological aspects.
–Fourth Step–the researchers compared individuals from each dietary habit category: one’s body mass index, one’s physical exercise habits, one’s smoking behavior and one’s typical alcohol consumption.
–Fifth Step–the researchers compared individuals’ overall health from each dietary habit category: self-reported health, levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases (if present), allergies (if present), cancer (if present), mental health ailments (if present) and urinary incontinence (if present).
What Was Found:
–BMI: vegetarians have the lowest mean BMI, followed by subjects eating a carnivorous diet less rich in meat, followed by subjects eating a carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables, followed by subjects eating a carnivorous diet rich in meat.
–Physical exercise habits: no significant difference between dietary habit categories was found.
Smoking behavior: the number of cigarettes smoked per day did not differ between the various dietary habit groups
–Alcohol consumption: Subjects eating a vegetarian diet/a carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables consume significantly less alcohol than those subjects eating a carnivorous diet less rich in meat/a carnivorous diet rich in meat.
–Vegetarians overall: self-report poorer health, higher levels of impairment from disorders, more chronic diseases than those eating a carnivorous diet less rich in meat, more suffer from allergies, more suffer from cancer, more suffer from mental health ailments, consult doctors more often than those eating a carnivorous diet less rich in meat, vaccinated less often, and make use of preventive check-ups less frequently.
–Carnivorous diet rich in meat overall: more urinary incontinence
What This Means:
When comparing vegetarians to the other dietary habit categories, vegetarians have an overall lower quality of “physical health”, “environment”, and “social relationships”. This study has revealed that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices and have a “lower” quality of life. The subjects in this study that follow a vegetarian diet have a significantly higher cancer incidence, suffer more often from anxiety disorders and/or depression, and require more medical treatment. Of course, like any study, these results do not necessarily show causation or imply that every vegetarian will have a lower quality of physical health, environment and social relationships.

Who Researched:
John K.B. Ford, Graeme M. Ellis, Lance G. Barrett-Lennard, Alexandra B. Morton, Rod S. Palm, and Kenneth C. Balcomb III
When Researched:
1973 to 1996
Published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology in 1998
Where Researched:
Nearshore waters of Vancouver Island, mainland British Columbia, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the coastal waters of Washington State and southeastern Alaska
Research Methods Used:
Field observations of predation: Most observations of predation were seen from boats, ranging from 5 to 20 meters, patrolling waters that killer whales often frequent. Different whales were identified as resident or transient based on their dorsal fins and tails. The killer whales were observed throughout the year; however, most observations of feeding behavior took place during the summer (June through September).
When predation or attempted predation was observed (rapid acceleration, sudden direction changes, circling), the researchers would collect the prey remains by sweeping the water, in which the hunting just took place, with a fine-mesh dip net. The remains were then analyzed for species identification and age identification.
Analyzed the stomach contents of stranded killer whales: A total of 14 beached Orca carcasses were examined. The stomachs (and mouth, esophagus, and intestine when possible) were either taken out and examined later or were examined at the scene of the beaching. Remains of mammalian prey (teeth, claws and vibrissae) were identified from a reference collection at the Pacific Biological Station. Remains of fish prey (skeletal remains) were identified from a reference collection by Pacific Identifications Limited, Victoria, B.C.
What Was Found:
Resident-type killer whales showed a distinct preference for salmon prey (96% of the prey documented); however, a total of 22 species of fish and one species of squid were documented in the resident-type killer whale diet. 12 of these species were previously unknown to be in the Orcinus orca diet. Similar to the resident-type orcas, the transient-type killer whales showed a preference for a certain species. Over half of observed transient-type killer whale attacks were on Harbor seals; however, their diet was quite diverse. They were observed to prey on pinnipeds, cetaceans and seabirds.
The differences in diet between resident-type and transient-type killer whales were known before this study but the diversity of their diets was unknown. The differences in their diets are also key to understanding the differences between transient-type and resident-type killer whales.

Who researched:
Graziano Fiorito and Pietro Scotto
When researched:
Published on April 24, 1992 in Science volume 256, number 5056, pages 545-547
How the research was conducted:
The research conducted went through three phases: training the demonstrators (Octopus that were conditioned to “attack” one ball over another), observing the actions of the untrained Octopus when given the same task, and testing the observers.
Phase one: the demonstrators were rewarded when they attacked the right ball (given fish) and punished when they attacked the wrong ball (shocked). They were considered fully trained when they attacked the right ball five times consecutively. Phase two: Once fully trained, an observer Octopus was placed in a glass tank adjacent to the demonstrator Octopus tank to witness four trials in which the correct ball was attacked. Researchers witnessed eye/head movement of the observers, proving the observer Octopus was paying attention to the actions of the demonstrator.
Phase three: The observer Octopus was given the same task of choosing between two balls (red or white) in five trials. No reward was given for choosing the correct ball.
What they found:
Octopus vulgaris demonstrated an ability to learn through observation of others. The failure rate of the observer Octopus (when given the same task) was significantly less than that of the demonstrator Octopus when it began training. Furthermore, the demonstrator Octopus learned to choose the correct ball much faster than their demonstrator counterparts when they were put through the classical training methods that were used on the demonstrator Octopus. When tested again five days later, the observer Octopus seemed to retain its knowledge of which ball to choose proving the Octopus vulgaris’ ability to retain knowledge.

Who researched:
Michael H. Hart
Where researched:
Laboratory for Planetary Atmosphere, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
When researched:
Received February 21, 1977
Revised June 20, 1977
Research methods used:
-Calculated/researched changes in the solar luminosity, variations in the Earth’s albedo, the greenhouse effect, variation in the biomass, and a variety of geochemical processes
-Assumed/approximated: degassing, condensation of water vapor, photodissociation/escape of hydrogen, oxidation of surface minerals, presence of life, limits on the biomass, urey reaction, photosynthesis and the burial of organic sediments, chemical reactions/solubility of gases, changes in solar luminosity, albedo and greenhouse effect
-Based on calculations, research, assumptions and approximations, Hart was able to run several computer simulations that measured:
levels of N2, O2, CO2, CH4, NH3, AR and H2O (grams)
surface pressure (atm)
effective temperature/surface temperature (degrees Kelvin)
What he found:
-CO2 levels significantly decreased but are on the rise again
-N2 has significantly increased
-CH4 and other reduced carbon compounds have decreased and are on the rise again
-O2 has increased
-Atmospheric pressure has gone up and down but is currently on its way back up
-Surface temperature has decreased but effective temperature has increased
-Water vapor has decreased significantly
-Argon has been on a steady rise since the beginning of Earth
-Cloud cover has significantly decreased but has been slowly rising again recently
-Albedo decreased, plateaued and has started to slowly rise again
-Organic carbon in sedimentary rocks has steadily increased
-Extra O2 in rocks has steadily increased
-Mass of CO2 in limestone has been on a steady increase since the beginning of Earth, however recently it has started to decline
What this means/Why it’s important:
The evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere can teach us several things. First, it can help us predict what the Earth’s atmosphere will be like in the future. This could potentially help us adapt to our environment faster than the slow process of evolution. Second, knowing what our atmosphere was like in the past can help us explain past natural phenomena and past biomass/biodiversity. And lastly, the ability to compare our atmosphere now with the atmosphere of the past can clue us into how we have affected our environment.

Research done by:
Carl M. Hand and Kent D. Van Liere
When researched:
Research done in 1976
Originally published in 1983; however, the copy I reviewed was recently revised
Research methods used:
A mail survey of 806 Washington state residents–using three models to examine the link between religious affiliation and one’s concern for the well-being of the environment:
-White’s model- how individuals interact with their environment depends on their beliefs on our “nature and destiny” (religion)
-Denominational diversity model- one’s denominational identification and attendance to religious events are positively correlated with environmental concerns for some denominations and negatively correlated for other denominations
-no-difference model- one’s view on the environment and one’s view on the anthropogenic changes to the environment excluding religious influence
What they found:
After surveying Washington State residents, Hand and Liere made several conclusions. First, Washington residents that associate themselves with a Judeo-Christian worldview tend to be more committed to a “mastery-over-nature” orientation (have more of a negative attitude towards environmental conservation) when compared to Washington residents with no religious affiliation . However, one’s level of commitment to nature conservation within the Judeo-Christian worldview depends on two things:
One’s denomination (i.e. Jewish, Protestant, Catholic….) and
One’s commitment to the religion (i.e. orthodox, reform…)
The denominations that tend to be more committed to a “mastery-over-nature” orientation are Baptists and Mormons. Instead, Episcopalians and Methodists are less likely to be committed to a “mastery-over-nature” orientation.

Who researched:
Graham J. Edgar, Rick D. Stuart-Smith, Trevor J. Willis, Stuart Kininmonth, Susan C. Baker, Stuart Banks, Neville S. Barrett, Mikel A. Becerro, Anthony T. F. Bernard, Just Berkhout, Colin D. Buxton, Stuart J. Campbell, Antonia T. Cooper, Marlene Davey, Sophie C. Edgar, Günter Försterra, David E. Galván, Alejo J. Irigoyen, David J. Kushner, Rodrigo Moura, P. Ed Parnell, Nick T. Shears, German Soler, Elisabeth M. A. Strain & Russell J. Thomson
Where researched:
87 Marine Protected Areas worldwide
When researched:
Received September 9, 2013
Accepted for publication January 13, 2014
Published online February 5, 2014
The five key features:
No take (no fishing), well enforced, old (over 10 years of being an MPA), large (over 100 kilometers squared) and isolated by deep water or sand
Research methods used:
Using underwater survey data from “effective” MPAs (with four or five of the key features) and predictions based on survey data from fished coasts, the researchers compared effective MPAs to fished areas–total fish biomass, total shark biomass and amount of large fish (larger than 250 mm in total length).
What they found:
59% of the Marine Protected Areas studied had only one or two of the key features needed to make an MPA effective. These ineffective MPAs were ecologically indistinguishable (the fish and shark biomass were equivalent and the number of large fish were equivalent) from the fished coasts studied. However, effective MPAs had twice as many large fish, a five times larger fish biomass and a fourteen times larger shark biomass than the fished areas surveyed.
What this means/Why it’s important:
Considering most (59%) MPAs share similar data on fish/shark biomass with regularly fished areas, more effort and enforcement needs to go into our Marine Protected Areas. It is thought that our oceans have only one third of the total fish biomass than historical levels and if we want to ensure a decent level of marine biodiversity in the future, we need to make sure that our Marine Protected Areas have the five key features presented by these researchers.

Who researched:

J. A. Estes, M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, D. F. Doak

Where researched:

Western Alaska

When researched:

Received for publication May 27, 1998

Accepted for publication July 20, 1998

Research methods used:

-population surveys at Adak Island in the central Aleutian archipelago

-population surveys at Little Kiska

-population surveys at Amchitka

-population surveys at the Kagalaska Islands

-Aerial surveys of the Aleutian archipelago conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1965 and 1992

-Studies of radio-tagged sea otters at Amchitka Island from 1992 to 1994

-Studies of radio-tagged sea otters at Adak Island from 1995 to 1996

-Contrasting otter population and trends in Adak Island with population and trends in Clam Lagoon

-Compared actual number of observed orca attacks on sea otters with expected number of witnessed attacks (based on estimations of how many orca attacks must drive the sea otter population decline rates)

-Kelp forests were surveyed at 28 randomly selected sites at Adak Island in 1987 and compared to surveys done in 1997

What they found:

Due to the maritime fur trade of the late 1800s to early 1900s, the sea otter (Enhydra Lutris) population was in great decline. Almost extinct, the North Pacific felt the need to act and created the International Fur Seal Treaty in 1911 in hopes of re-growing the sea otter population. By the 1970s, the sea otter population had somewhat bounced back, particularly in the North Pacific. However, in the late 1980s marine biologists once again noticed a decline in the population in Western Alaska. Through eyewitness reports, studies of radio-tagged sea otters, sea otter population surveys and random kelp forest surveys, scientists noticed a decline of about 25% of the sea otter population in Western Alaska from 1987 to 1997. This decline in population was evidenced by the decline of kelp forests and a sharp increase in sea urchin biomass in this region. This drastic decline in a sea otter population can be explained by three phenomena: redistribution, increased mortality or reduced fertility. Studies of radio-tagged sea otters showed that fertility rates were similar to those of stable populations and the sea otters of Western Alaska had not redistributed. Therefore, the sea otters must have been declining due to an increased mortality rate.

This increased mortality rate is most likely due to killer whale (Orcinus Orca) predation. This is evidenced by 10 eyewitness reports of killer whales attacking sea otters, which had never been observed before 1991. Weighing in the number of eyewitness reports, the chances of witnessing this phenomenon and the number of days this scientific team spent observing sea otters; J. A. Estes, M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak concluded that the sharp decline of the sea otter population in Western Alaska was most likely due to killer whale predation.

What this means/Why it’s important:

Killer Whales had never been known to hunt sea otters before the 1990s. However, outsourcing to a new prey is not an unexpected act.  Due to drastic overfishing in the North Pacific, pinniped populations have declined forcing killer whales to find new food sources. Knowing the intelligence levels of these marine mammals, it is not surprising that they would know to turn to a new, abundant food source readily available to them. However, what is surprising, and important, about this research is how a species from one ecosystem can have such a large effect on a completely separate ecosystem. Killer whales (from the oceanic ecosystem) are completely changing the coastal ecosystem of Western Alaska by killing off the keystone species (sea otters). This decline in sea otters is causing kelp forests to disappear and sea urchins to become the most abundant species. This shift from a three-trophic-level system to a four-trophic-level system has completely shifted the dynamic of the coastal ecosystem and shows just how big an influence a top predator can have on an entire food chain.

In addition to the findings of the research, we can learn from the research itself. These findings could not have been uncovered if it weren’t for the steady, slow process of a 10 year study, showing the need for large-scale approaches in some research (particularly ecological research).