Search

Effective bioinspiration requires dialogue between designers and biologists, and this dialogue must be rooted in a shared scientific understanding of living systems. To support learning from "nature's overarching design lessons" the Biomimicry Institute has produced ten "Unifying Patterns of Nature". These patterns have been developed to engage with those interested in finding biologically inspired solutions to human challenges. Yet, although well-intentioned and appealing, they are likely to dishearten biologists. The aim of this paper is to identify why and propose alternative principles based on evolutionary theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Artnodes is the property of Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The organization of the living world covers a vast range of spatiotemporal scales, from molecules to the biosphere, seconds to centuries. Biologists working within specialized subdisciplines tend to focus on different ranges of scales. Therefore, developing frameworks that enable testing questions and predictions of scaling requires sufficient understanding of complex processes across biological subdisciplines and spatiotemporal scales. Frameworks that enable scaling across subdisciplines would ideally allow us to test hypotheses about the degree to which explicit integration across spatiotemporal scales is needed for predicting the outcome of biological processes. For instance, how does genomic variation within populations allow us to explain community structure? How do the dynamics of cellular metabolism translate to our understanding of whole-ecosystem metabolism? Do patterns and processes operate seamlessly across biological scales, or are there fundamental laws of biological scaling that limit our ability to make predictions from one scale to another? Similarly, can sub-organismal structures and processes be sufficiently understood in isolation of potential feedbacks from the population, community, or ecosystem levels? And can we infer the sub-organismal processes from data on the population, community, or ecosystem scale? Concerted efforts to develop more cross-disciplinary frameworks will open doors to a more fully integrated field of biology. In this paper, we discuss how we might integrate across scales, specifically by (1) identifying scales and boundaries, (2) determining analogous units and processes across scales, (3) developing frameworks to unite multiple scales, and (4) extending frameworks to new empirical systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for basic research to uncover the inner workings of regenerative processes and produce meaningful medical therapies has inspired scientists, clinicians, and patients for hundreds of years. Decades of studies using a handful of highly regenerative model organisms have significantly advanced our knowledge of key cell types and molecular pathways involved in regeneration. However, many questions remain about how regenerative processes unfold in regeneration-competent species, how they are curtailed in non-regenerative organisms, and how they might be induced (or restored) in humans. Recent technological advances in genomics, molecular biology, computer science, bioengineering, and stem cell research hold promise to collectively provide new experimental evidence for how different organisms accomplish the process of regeneration. In theory, this new evidence should inform the design of new clinical approaches for regenerative medicine. A deeper understanding of how tissues and organs regenerate will also undoubtedly impact many adjacent scientific fields. To best apply and adapt these new technologies in ways that break long-standing barriers and answer critical questions about regeneration, we must combine the deep knowledge of developmental and evolutionary biologists with the hard-earned expertise of scientists in mechanistic and technical fields. To this end, this perspective is based on conversations from a workshop we organized at the Banbury Center, during which a diverse cross-section of the regeneration research community and experts in various technologies discussed enduring questions in regenerative biology. Here, we share the questions this group identified as significant and unanswered, i.e., known unknowns. We also describe the obstacles limiting our progress in answering these questions and how expanding the number and diversity of organisms used in regeneration research is essential for deepening our understanding of regenerative capacity. Finally, we propose that investigating these problems collaboratively across a diverse network of researchers has the potential to advance our field and produce unexpected insights into important questions in related areas of biology and medicine. This Perspective highlights the fundamental questions in the regeneration process from start to finish and how they might be addressed to facilitate cross-species studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Definition: The term "bioinspiration" defines a creative approach based on the observation of biological principles and transfer to design. Biomimicry is the recent approach, which describes a large field of scientific and technical activities dealing with an interdisciplinary cooperation between biology and other fields with the goal of solving practical problems addressing innovation or sustainable development. Architecture has been influenced by many aspects of natural and social sciences, among these, biology is currently blending into design activities. Bioinspiration has evolved and shifted architectural practices towards numerous innovative approaches through different bioarchitectural movements from the past until the present. However, there is a blur of biomimicry within bioinspiration in architecture between the direct copy of mere natural forms and the true understanding of biological principles, which is the pivot of sustainable development. The main challenge remains in the gap between the profound knowledge of biology, its related scientific fields and the creative process of architectural design, including cross-disciplinary collaboration between architects and biologists. This entry presents main bioarchitectural movements and how it leads to today's biomimicry. It proposes to define biomimicry methodologies and how this approach applies to architectural design contexts through the study of existing case studies. The opportunities, challenges and the future outlook of the field will also be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how and why phenotypic traits covary is a major interest in evolutionary biology. Biologists have long sought to characterize the extent of morphological integration in organisms, but comparing levels of integration for a set of traits across taxa has been hampered by the lack of a reliable summary measure and testing procedure. Here, we propose a standardized effect size for this purpose, calculated from the relative eigenvalue variance, Vrel$V_{rel}$. First, we evaluate several eigenvalue dispersion indices under various conditions, and show that only Vrel$V_{rel}$ remains stable across samples size and the number of variables. We then demonstrate that Vrel$V_{rel}$ accurately characterizes input patterns of covariation, so long as redundant dimensions are excluded from the calculations. However, we also show that the variance of the sampling distribution of Vrel$V_{rel}$ depends on input levels of trait covariation, making Vrel$V_{rel}$ unsuitable for direct comparisons. As a solution, we propose transforming Vrel$V_{rel}$ to a standardized effect size (Z‐score) for representing the magnitude of integration for a set of traits. We also propose a two‐sample test for comparing the strength of integration between taxa, and show that this test displays appropriate statistical properties. We provide software for implementing the procedure, and an empirical example illustrates its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millions of people across the world have been exposed to the wildlife documentaries of David Attenborough and Bernhard Grzimek, who have thus greatly influenced the public's views on nature and biodiversity. We investigated the way organisms' biology is portrayed in these documentaries, quantifying different types of animal interactions shown. We evaluated 1498 (Attenborough) and 391 (Grzimek) interactions within- and between-species from documentaries covering a wide range of environments and animal taxa, first aired between 1956 and 2019. We tested whether the relative frequencies of different interactions were influenced by temporal trends as well as by the presenters and their production teams who likely reflect the given Zeitgeist in the UK compared to the European mainland. For our categorisation of animal interactions, we contrasted interspecific versus intraspecific interactions and antagonistic versus cooperative behaviour. While Grzimek's documentaries put a stronger emphasis on cooperation and Attenborough's on antagonistic behaviour, the trends were not statistically significant. Furthermore, these patterns show no significant change over time, contrasting with the changing view among biologists that cooperation is more predominant than considered in the traditional understanding of nature as 'red in tooth and claw'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as "fieldwork." Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last few decades, biologists have made remarkable progress in understanding the fundamental processes that shape life. But despite the unprecedented level of knowledge now available, large gaps still remain in our understanding of the complex interplay of eco-evolutionary mechanisms across scales of life. Rapidly changing environments on Earth provide a pressing need to understand the potential implications of eco-evolutionary dynamics, which can be achieved by improving existing eco-evolutionary models and fostering convergence among the sub-fields of biology. We propose a new, data-driven approach that harnesses our knowledge of the functioning of biological systems to expand current conceptual frameworks and develop corresponding models that can more accurately represent and predict future eco-evolutionary outcomes. We suggest a roadmap toward achieving this goal. This long-term vision will move biology in a direction that can wield these predictive models for scientific applications that benefit humanity and increase the resilience of natural biological systems. We identify short, medium, and long-term key objectives to connect our current state of knowledge to this long-term vision, iteratively progressing across three stages: (1) utilizing knowledge of biological systems to better inform eco-evolutionary models, (2) generating models with more accurate predictions, and (3) applying predictive models to benefit the biosphere. Within each stage, we outline avenues of investigation and scientific applications related to the timescales over which evolution occurs, the parameter space of eco-evolutionary processes, and the dynamic interactions between these mechanisms. The ability to accurately model, monitor, and anticipate eco-evolutionary changes would be transformational to humanity's interaction with the global environment, providing novel tools to benefit human health, protect the natural world, and manage our planet's biosphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying individual animals is crucial for many biological investigations. In response to some of the limitations of current identification methods, new automated computer vision approaches have emerged with strong performance. Here, we review current advances of computer vision identification techniques to provide both computer scientists and biologists with an overview of the available tools and discuss their applications. We conclude by offering recommendations for starting an animal identification project, illustrate current limitations, and propose how they might be addressed in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]