When a scientist publishes their research in a journal, the flow of information of doesn’t stop there—science journalism is an important form of communication that makes this research accessible to the average person. Because academic readers and casual readers are very different audiences, differences are necessary in the way that the same information is presented. By comparing a popular science article to its primary source, we can see how a skillful writer can turn research into news.
In a recent study published in Science (Halfwerk et al., 2014), a research team investigated how animals integrate multiple sensory systems when receiving another animal’s signal. The researchers worked with male Tungara frogs, which produce mating calls while sitting in shallow water. Although it was previously known that frogs would respond to a neighboring male’s call (by calling faster, or falling silent in either preparation to fight or flee), Halfwerk and colleagues discovered that the water ripples produced by calling are an important factor—other males were significantly more likely to respond when ripples accompanied a recorded male frog call. If the ripples indicated that the call was outside the male’s territory (about a 15 cm circle), males increase their rate of calling. If the ripples were inside the territory, males more often fell silent as they prepared to fight or yield to the competitor.
The additional information allows male frogs to avoid sexual competition with other males and better their own reproductive success by deciding if it is worth their time to keep calling (louder and faster), fight a competitor, or if it would be more advantageous to give up and find a new location. The team found that bats that prey on these frogs also benefit, using echolocation to detect ripples which remain present several seconds after a frog has stopped calling. Bats attacked model frogs more when both the recorded call was played and when ripples were generated in the puddle, than when the call was played with no ripples. They showed no preference when researchers put leaves into the water to obstruct ripples. Whether they be competitors or predators, other animals benefit from “eavesdropping” with multiple senses.
The Wired science blog that reported this study was similar to the original research in its general flow of information, first addressing how other Tungara frogs responded to ripples, then moving on to how bats exploit the lingering ripples. However, while the research focused on describing the methodology, the blog article is primarily focused on communicating the results, with a much more narrative style and conversational tone—it does not rely on a strong background in biology or any other science. Visual information was also presented in a much more engaging way. In the primary literature this information was limited to several graphs and figures for representing data, but the blog included an eye-catching color picture of a Tungara frog beneath the headline, in addition to embedding a short video of the behavior.
Overall, I enjoyed the blog’s style and tone, and would prefer reading it over the primary literature any day. However, several of the points from the primary literature omitted by the article could have been usefully incorporated. The original paper included an interesting human parallel for the integration of audio-visual processing—lip movements are visual cues in human speech that aid us in communication. For a public audience, this would have been a good example to put different kinds of sensory communication in a functional context. The blog post could also have benefited from mentioning some select research methods to add credibility—while the Wired blog covered the result that bats responded to ripples, it left out the leaf litter test the researchers used to conclude this.
This news story could appeal to a wide range of audiences, but I think that readers with an interest in animals, or specifically behavior, would be most attracted to a story like this. I found this post under the “Zoology” tab of the Wired science blogs—the fact that they separate zoology from the other life science sections (such as microbiology or neurology) indicates recognition of a specific niche in science journalism. The media seems well-aware of the public’s interest in unusual and charismatic animals, so it is reasonable that this research paper received attention. However, regardless of niche or interest, it is notable that a blog article like this can be understood by virtually anyone—not only for the purpose of education, but also for a reader’s discovery of new interests and passions. In this way, I think science writing serves the scientific community as much as it does the public—if science was inaccessible to people without a technical background, we would surely have a shortage of new researchers!
Work referenced
Halfwerk, W., Jones, P. L., Taylor, R. C., Ryan, M. J., and Page, R. A. (2014). Risky Ripples Allow Bats and Frogs to Eavesdrop on a Multisensory Sexual Display. Science 343(6169): 413-416. doi:10.1126/science.1244812.
Bates, Mary. “Frogs and Bats Use Water Ripples to Eavesdrop on Frog Calls.” Web log post. Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 21 Jan. 0014. Web. Accessed 5 Mar. 2014. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/frogs-bats-use-water-ripples-eavesdrop-frog-calls/>.
Tags: communication, competition, frogs, predation