Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research

Abstract

BackgroundEcological research often involves sampling and manipulating non-model organisms that reside in heterogeneous environments. As such, ecologists often adapt techniques and ideas from industry and other scientific fields to design and build equipment, tools, and experimental contraptions custom-made for the ecological systems under study. Three-dimensional (3D) printing provides a way to rapidly produce identical and novel objects that could be used in ecological studies, yet ecologists have been slow to adopt this new technology. Here, we provide ecologists with an introduction to 3D printing.ResultsFirst, we give an overview of the ecological research areas in which 3D printing is predicted to be the most impactful and review current studies that have already used 3D printed objects. We then outline a methodological workflow for integrating 3D printing into an ecological research program and give a detailed example of a successful implementation of our 3D printing workflow for 3D printed models of the brown anole, Anolis sagrei, for a field predation study. After testing two print media in the field, we show that the models printed from the less expensive and more sustainable material (blend of 70% plastic and 30% recycled wood fiber) were just as durable and had equal predator attack rates as the more expensive material (100% virgin plastic).ConclusionsOverall, 3D printing can provide time and cost savings to ecologists, and with recent advances in less toxic, biodegradable, and recyclable print materials, ecologists can choose to minimize social and environmental impacts associated with 3D printing. The main hurdles for implementing 3D printing—availability of resources like printers, scanners, and software, as well as reaching proficiency in using 3D image software—may be easier to overcome at institutions with digital imaging centers run by knowledgeable staff. As with any new technology, the benefits of 3D printing are specific to a particular project, and ecologists must consider the investments of developing usable 3D materials for research versus other methods of generating those materials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12898-018-0190-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

3D Printing for Ecology and Evolution: A Hands-on Guide to Turn an Idea into Reality

“…For instance, in thermal ecology, 3D printed lizard models were used as "more standard, lighter, durable, and inexpensive" alternatives to the traditional copper hollow electroformed models for field studies about their thermal properties (Watson & Francis, 2015). In another study, 3D printed lizards were also found to be more efficient than clay models in studies of predation rate (Behm et al, 2018) (Figure 2A). In functional ecology, key questions often involve studying the impact of specific morphological properties of the organism (or part of it).…”

“…The technology is mature enough for widespread use for research, education and outreach in multiple fields (Lücking, Sambale, Beutel, & Scheper, 2015;Ambrosi & Pumera, 2016;Patra & Young, 2016). However, the use of 3D printing still remains relatively rare in biology, and ecology and evolutionary biology makes no exception (but see Behm, Waite, Hsieh, & Helmus, 2018;Walker & Humphries, 2019). Figure 1.…”

“…A brief overview of 3D printing use in ecology and evolution 3D printing has opened a world of possibilities for the design and creation of customized objects. Recent reviews offer a relatively comprehensive synthesis of the current use of 3D printed objects in ecology and evolution (Behm et al, 2018;Walker & Humphries, 2019). Here, we give a brief overview of the most frequent applications, grouped into three main categories ( Figure 2): replicas of biological material, technical tools, and customized experimental devices.…”

“…Examples of use of 3D printed objects in ecological and evolutionary research and education. Replicas of biological material, such as (A) lizard models to study predation rate (Behm et al, 2018), (B) scent-free flowers to disentangle visual and olfactory cues produced by orchids (Policha et al, 2016), (C) flower corollas of specific mathematically characterized shapes to test the foraging behaviour of pollinators (Campos et al, 2015), (D) eggs to study egg rejection among robins (Igic et al, 2015), (E) cervical vertebra of the dwarf elephant Palaeoloxodon tiliensis (Mitsopoulou et al, 2015), and (F) insects used in outreach activities targeted at blind people (Laurentino, 2019). Customized experimental material to be used in the field or in the lab, such as (G) artificial landscape microcosms to study protist (meta)population dynamics (Morel Journel & Schtickzelle, in prep.…”

Evaluating seasonal patterns of female aggression: Case study in a cavity‐nesting bird with intense female–female competition

“…Because these decoys can be so easily made, researchers can cheaply create numerous mounts that are almost disposable, minimize pseudoreplication, and enhance reliability in ethological studies (Parker, Greig, Nakagawa, Parra, & Dalisio, 2018). 3D printing is revolutionizing many different disciplines within ecology and evolution (Behm, Waite, Hsieh, & Helmus, 2018;Domingue et al, 2015;Igic et al, 2015;Porter, Adriaens, Hatton, Meyers, & McKittrick, 2015;Qing & Bert, 2018), and in the future, advanced modifications, such as iridescent or UV-matched paint colours, instead of animal skins, could remove the need to use live animals in a range of behavioural tests.…”