Dr. Mark Belk, Department of Biology
How well were academic objectives of the proposal met
The proposal was to conduct a large-scale mark-recapture project on a livebearing fish in Utah lake to evaluate size and sex-specific mortality rates of this population. The experiment was begun in mid- summer by marking over 1000 individual mosquitofish. All fish were returned to the lake alive after marking. In the original design we would recapture fish at two later intervals – late summer and early spring. At the late summer recapture time we recaptured individuals over a four day period with an intensive effort involving several undergraduates and graduate students. We recaptured only one marked individual out of the original 1000, so from an academic perspective the experiment failed.
After this discouraging outcome we refocused our research on conducting experiments on cost of reproduction in burying beetles and we spent the remaining time and funds on this research. This refocus resulted in several successful experiments and ongoing work. Two of these experiments that have been completed were presented by undergraduate students at the Ecological Society of America annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, August 2012. Two additional experiments that were part of this refocus were reported by graduate students at the Ecological Society of America annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, August 2012. The four titles and the student presenter are listed below.
- Jeremy Rhem, Temporal niche partitioning in two sympatric species of burying beetles.
- Peter Meyers, Differences in lifetime reproductive output on varying resource sizes in a burying beetle. Clint Laidlaw, Variation in current versus future reproduction and tolerance to over-reproduction across a latitudinal cline in a burying beetle.
- Mason Segura, Effects of male age and experience on bi-parental reproductive output and allocation in a burying beetle.
So, although the goals of the original research were not met, the refocused experiments were very successful from an academic perspective.
Evaluation of the mentoring environment
Both sets of experiments done as part of this MEG funding involved a large number of students. Students were involved in significant ways. As part of the first experiment students were trained in field capture, marking, and measurement techniques for small fishes. Students became proficient at these methods. As part of the experiments on burying beetles students learned laboratory techniques and animal husbandry methods needed to complete a complex experiment. They not only learned the methods, but understood the structure and hypotheses tested by the experiment. I met with the students on a regular basis to discuss their experiences and to help them understand the conceptual issues of the research. Students worked directly with two graduate students on a daily basis. They helped in the research and asked questions of the graduate students. Students were required to send me a weekly email that detailed their understanding and experiences. At the end of the semester or term students were required to submit a 2-3 page report of their experience and understanding. I visited with students about their level of involvement and asked them if they would like to continue with the research and to work toward presentation at a scientific meeting and authorship of a paper. As noted above two graduate students and two undergraduates presented results of their research at a national meeting as a result of the second set of experiments. Two graduate students and one undergraduate are currently working toward publication of a paper from their work on burying beetles. Two other undergraduates are working on publishing papers that are not directly linked to this experiment. These students were introduced to research through these projects, but have since moved to other projects. All students involved in research funded by this MEG are listed below.
- Clint Laidlaw
- Peter Meyers
- Mason Segura
- Jeremy Rehm
- Liem Nguyen
- Britton Bircher
- Anne Hancock
- Eric Mattson
- Alex Tippetts
- Elias Combs
- Kayla Melling
- Kevin Mitchell
- Ethan Damron
- James Sweeney
- Josh Harvey
- Ryan Stephens
- Leland Montierth
Description of results
Jeremy’s project shows that two co-occurring species of burying beetles have different temporal activity patterns. These data suggest that the two species coexist in part because of this differentiation of activity patterns.
- Clint’s project shows that life history patterns differ significantly between populations from high and low latitudes. These differences appear to represent adaptive differences resulting from adaptation to different temperature regimes.
- Peter’s project shows that two species of co-occurring burying beetle have very different patterns of fecundity on different sized carcasses. One species prefers carcasses of 20-30 grams and the other prefers carcasses of 40-50 grams, but the two species do not differ dramatically in body size.
- Mason’s project shows that male age and reproductive experience both affect reproductive output in this species that provides biparental care of offspring. Male costs of reproduction differ from costs of females even though both can provide sufficient care to raise a brood.
Budget
Most of the budget was spent on student wages and supplies to conduct the large-scale mark-recapture experiment on mosquitofish. The remaining funds were spent on supplies to conduct the experiments on burying beetles.