Exploring Large Scale Questions in the Study of Mammalian Biology

I recently attended a seminar presented by Dr Phil Stephens of Durham University. Phil wanted to discuss the way data is collected in reference to the conservation of large mammals, and the ways in which this data can enhance or inhibit biological studies. The presentation attracted a large audience which suggests, at least in Bangor, that there is a significant deal of interest in the subject matter.

Phil began the presentation by using previous studies on insects and birds to exemplify the way in which data is collated. He introduced the audience to the analysis of trends and coefficients – supported by a large number of graphs – as a means of both current population examination, and future population prediction.

Phil then progressed to explaining where the majority of mammalian data sets came from – citing short-term studies, incidental data (often collected by hunters), and long-term studies. He identified the benefits that the long-term study has in terms of tracing the life-history of mammals, population in relation to climate change and heritability.

Alpine Chamois

Dr Stephens progressed to exploring the alternative methods of data collection and cited some specific in-depth studies into Italian Chamois population based on records collected by hunters, and Red Fox distribution records which were collated over a huge time-scale and via a multitude of methods. After addressing the benefits of the studies and the positive data collected, Phil questioned both the viability and adaptability of these data collection methods as a standard. My own, albeit far less significant, experience in data collection led me to sympathise with the point Phil was making. Anyone who has ever written a literary review will know that data collection methods are intensely varied and can often be difficult to compare in a like-for-like manner.

Dr Stephens showed a keen interest in exploring other, perhaps more tailored, data collection methods. Though his suggestion that we were approaching the end of the long-term study as a viable data collection method was perhaps intentional hyperbole, he made a valid point in that it’s relevance was dwindling – and new data collection methods would have to be developed and adopted as standard if we are to find greater conservation success in the future.

Red Fox

Phil identified technological advances as being the major key to progression in development of data collection techniques, suggesting that a Europe-wide, or even global database could be created to keep track of population changes in a number of mammals. I believe a standardised data collected system must be adopted sometime in the near future. Collusion between scientists is vital if we are to streamline data collection methods, and in the current technological age, there is no excuse for lack of communication.

I found the talk particularly engaging, and despite Dr Stephens’ insistence that grassroots data collection was not a ‘sexy science’, the fact that mammals were the focus of the presentation attracted a large audience. Mammals will always encourage greater conservation interest (particularly those showing signs of endangerment) and as a result, attract a greater deal of funding than many other scientific classes. Perhaps, for this reason, mammalian conservation can help to pioneer a new method of data collection which can be extrapolated and aid the conservation of all species on earth.

Two endangered Black Rhino playfully lock horns